openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to nixen
Re: Anything that takes google down a notch is good.....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. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2009-Oct-15 3:07 pm
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". |
|
nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA 1 edit |
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). |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
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? |
|
|
openbox9 |
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.... |
|
nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2009-Oct-15 4:41 pm
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). |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Oct-15 5:21 pm
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. |
|
nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2009-Oct-15 7:12 pm
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. |
|
Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 |
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? |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Oct-15 7:24 pm
When you start making points in your posts, then we can discuss. |
|
openbox9 |
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. |
|
nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
1 recommendation |
nixen
Premium Member
2009-Oct-15 9:25 pm
said by openbox9: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. You're right. I wasn't sitting there in the chair when some fascist said, "give us this data we have no legal right to ask for and we'll do you a big favor and provide you immunity from prosecution for breaching the trust of your subscribers and that of any other parties whose data transits your networks". Sounds like a perfectly reasonable decision ...if you're completely unethical. So, yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder how many of us would turn down the opportunity to line our pockets free and clear of any responsibility for our unethical actions. |
|