Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good..... -

Author	All Replies
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to woody7 Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good..... Honest question, but how exactly has AT&T "screwed" you?
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 11:37:40 ·
chimera join:2009-06-09 Washington, DC	AT&T kicked me once in the shin, it hurt.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 12:52:30 ·
morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000	reply to openbox9 said by openbox9: Honest question, but how exactly has AT&T "screwed" you? by illegally handing over all my phone, internet, and cell records to the NSA and receiving favorable government treatment in return, of course. do we really have to go over this all the time?
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 13:41:46 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	We can over it until we have a legitimate "screwing". If we're discussing the wiretapping issue, then perhaps woody7 should have stated the Government is doing the "screwing".
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 13:55:41 ·
woody7 Premium join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA	I was replying to `another post, Google hasn't done anything to me, But ATT has with my wireless account, I wasn't complaining about the Illegal wire tap from them. If not mistaken, the wiretap was done by ATT (or facilitated at the least) , not the government. My problem isn't with the government, but with ATT. All they had to say was no. I believe they have the money and the resources to have resisted. Peace -- BlooMe
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 14:07:24 ·

nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA	reply to openbox9 said by openbox9: We can over it until we have a legitimate "screwing". If we're discussing the wiretapping issue, then perhaps woody7 should have stated the Government is doing the "screwing". With complicity from the phone companies. The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas. However, they chose to help without those legal requirements because they could cash in future considerations. The *AAs couldn't really give the telcos such future considerations. Thus, Verizon had no real compunction against telling them to pound sand. -- The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 14:24:37 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to woody7 So, your "screwing" is your AT&T wireless account? Care to share? I'm honestly curious, because a lot of people tend to throw around various attacks at various large companies, with little to no real reason. I'm not suggestion you don't have a legitimate gripe, but I'm curious what it is. Yes, wiretap was facilitated by AT&T. Since they own and operate a significant portion of the PSTN, they had to be involved. Government was involved when they walked into AT&T's offices (and others) and requested/directed AT&T's assistance.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 14:54:55 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to nixen said by nixen: The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas. It's very easy to sit on the outside and say that they didn't "have" to without having all of the details. It'd be an interesting exercise to see how the situation would've been handled by the complainants if they'd been in the CEO's position.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 14:58:31 ·
morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000	said by openbox9: said by nixen: The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas. It's very easy to sit on the outside and say that they didn't "have" to without having all of the details. It'd be an interesting exercise to see how the situation would've been handled by the complainants if they'd been in the CEO's position. see Qwest for the relevant comparison. Qwest said "no" to the illegal request. it's actually very easy to reject any requests that are illegal, yet somehow AT&T still said "yes".
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 15:07:01 ·
nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA 1 edit	reply to openbox9 said by openbox9: said by nixen: The phone companies didn't have to help, at all, without the government presenting warrants/subpoenas. It's very easy to sit on the outside and say that they didn't "have" to without having all of the details. It'd be an interesting exercise to see how the situation would've been handled by the complainants if they'd been in the CEO's position. Actually, no. There's only two legitimate methods for discovery: warrant/subpoena and the ever-sketchy NSL. If either mechanism had been used, there'd have been no need for "immunity". Immunity only needs to be granted when a (potential) defendant or witness for the prosecution has done something illegal (e.g., to get a criminal to testify against other criminals - a completely apt comparison in this case). -- The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 15:11:15 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to morbo Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good..... How's Qwest doing these days? What's their relevance in the telecom market?
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 15:41:42 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to nixen Actually, no what? I think you most people might think differently had they been in the position of decision maker when the government knocked on their door. I understand the definition of immunity....
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 15:45:42 ·
nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA	said by openbox9: Actually, no what? I think you most people might think differently had they been in the position of decision maker when the government knocked on their door. I understand the definition of immunity.... Actually, no: they didn't have to give over the data absent a warrant or subpoena (or even an NSL). That's the underlying requirement for any type of wiretapping or diversion of data to the government. My suggestion to you, if you think otherwise, is to go read the text and legal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Clearly, if you understood the concept of legal immunity, you would know that it's only granted in situations where the grantee has done something for which they would otherwise be held legally liable (i.e., they committed a crime or even just a tort violation). -- The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 16:41:16 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	I did not state that AT&T had to provide the government access to wiretaps sans a warrant. Clearly if you had read my post, we wouldn't be continuing this dialog.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 17:21:35 ·
nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA	said by openbox9: I did not state that AT&T had to provide the government access to wiretaps sans a warrant. Clearly if you had read my post, we wouldn't be continuing this dialog. No, what you said was that they may have had other motives or pressures. Irregardless, that doesn't give them a legal reason to turn over private data. As such, they don't deserve the immunity that they bought and paid for. -- The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 19:12:38 ·
digitalfreak Premium join:2005-12-09 Blacklick, OH	reply to openbox9 said by openbox9: How's Qwest doing these days? What's their relevance in the telecom market? Do you have a point, or are you just babbling again?
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 19:13:51 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	When you start making points in your posts, then we can discuss.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 19:24:13 ·
woody7 Premium join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA	reply to openbox9 I and my wife have been without a new contract since we went to gsm. When we ask them about phones or any thing the want us to get a new contract, when I needed an updated sim, I got crap at the store about my phone not being the one I got with the sim (that phone fell in the john and I bought a go phone at walmart to replace it) . I cracked the display on a phone and they told me I needed a new one, bought a new face plate on line for 5$ and replaced my self. I know it is a bunch of little things but they add up. Not to mention weird charges on my bill that take forever clear up. Hence my comment about Google. -- BlooMe
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 19:56:06 ·
openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2	reply to nixen said by nixen: No, what you said was that they may have had other motives or pressures. That's what you inferred. What I stated was it's easy for people not involved in the negotiations/discussions to be armchair lawyers and I'm curious what the outcome of the situation might have been if some of the naysayers where in the positions of the management that made the decisions.
	to forum · permalink · 2009-10-15 20:15:51 ·

AT&T: Google Is The Enemy Of Nuns > Anything that takes google down a notch is good.....

Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good.....

Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good.....