Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
1 edit | Why? Privacy is long gone. I'm just curious why these companies are allowed to charge law enforcement agencies for access? There should be a law to prevent them from making profit from this.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer. |
|
 NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1 |
They would simply claim it is only to cover cost, and not profit.
|
|
 nycdavePremium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:7 | reply to Anonymous
And the Verizon pricing info in the document is over 6 years old - real relevant today....How about some current 'leaked' documents? |
|
|
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
·Suddenlink
| said by nycdave:And the Verizon pricing info in the document is over 6 years old - real relevant today....How about some current 'leaked' documents? I don't think the price is all that important, but what is important, is that it happens so often, they need a price list in the first place.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Anonymous
They sell the info because that changes the laws regarding how the government can obtain and handle information. As long as the government is paying for it then the rules are significantly different than if the government is seizing the information in some way. |
|
nycdavePremium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:7 | reply to gatorkram
I know that, but the leaked Verizon document is a bit dated for this discussion. And all common carriers have to provide LEA's pricing/contact information for the various requests made (CALEA requirements) - I don't see what this document has to do with 'selling user data' to the government. |
|
| reply to Angrychair
Technically you're paying for it. |
|
| reply to Anonymous
Government agencies charge fees to have some documents accessed and copied to be sent to you.
Why should a business not be allowed to recoup the expense of looking up and gathering the information that law enforcement requires? |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Anonymous
said by Anonymous:I'm just curios why these companies are allowed to charge law enforcement agencies for access? Because you use them without requiring any guarantee they wont?
When I post to Yahoo Finance groups I'm met with a warning that I'm not anonymous and Yahoo will reveal information about me in accordance with their ToS.
I never looked at the ToS. I assume it's broadly worded to give Yahoo the advantage. Especially considering it's a free service. So, I assume I'm really not anonymous in the most literal sense.
IMO, the vast majority of people don't care about something like this. It's just a few privacy activists. And, that's why Yahoo, et. al. don't have any problems.
I think your only solution is to vote with your feet. If you don't like Yahoo's policies, don't use them. I can't see having a public law to control all business, placing them under statutory liability, for a problem most people evidently don't believe is a problem.
Mark |
|
| reply to skuv
And if you read the PDF's involved you would see that they aren't charging for EMERGENCY actions and info related to barricaded suspects; 911 calls; etc. They are charging for historical records that would be used LATER in legal proceedings(both criminal & civil). |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to skuv
said by skuv :
Why should a business not be allowed to recoup the expense of looking up and gathering the information that law enforcement requires?
Why should the government be able to buy the data? What is the point of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the government can exercise a commercial end-run around it?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:I think your only solution is to vote with your feet. If you don't like Yahoo's policies, don't use them. I can't. Not unless I bail from my ISP (official name: 'at&t Yahoo! HSI). Hmmm. Come to think of it, maybe now it the time to investigate a switch to Speakeasy, or Sonic. DSL Extreme is out of the question; they are a cozily in bed with Google as AT&T is with Yahoo!.
I can't see having a public law to control all business, placing them under statutory liability, for a problem most people evidently don't believe is a problem.
I can. Or, maybe, let's just repeal the U.S. Constitution, and replace it with a multi-corporate TOS! 
Born in the U.S.A., read the U.S.A. TOS.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:said by skuv :
Why should a business not be allowed to recoup the expense of looking up and gathering the information that law enforcement requires?
Why should the government be able to buy the data? What is the point of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the government can exercise a commercial end-run around it? Warrants are only needed for SOME of your private data based on specific laws. There is NO LAW that protects all your data from government scrutiny(i.e. a generic right to privacy). Especially when you have turned that data over or have put the data in the hands of 3rd parties.
There are specific laws protecting phone records; library rentals; movie rentals; health records; etc. But there is NO general right to privacy(at least according to SC decisions), no matter what the 4th Amendment says. There are so many court decisions limiting the right to privacy, it is a swiss cheese of an amendment. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ame···titution
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| I already knew that. I was hoping somebody would comment on the nature of our government, though: "Of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations."
We have been downgraded from, "people", to "corporate chattel".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by NormanS:We have been downgraded from, "people", to "corporate chattel". I don't see that improving without amending the 14th amendment.
That amendment was ratified 1866 and was a hasty measure to extend the BoR to state and private infringement; to give the feds authority to enforce the BoR as states and localities attempted to reinstitute slavery through laws which stripped freed slaves of rights.
After the Civil War, courts upheld the long-standing tradition that the BoR only barred Congress from infringing rights. States were free to do what they wanted; victims had to look for relief there.
The Feds had no jurisdiction because citizens were citizens of states (not the federal government). They had nothing to enforce even if they had jurisdiction (the BoR was a bar against Congress, not state legislatures). They passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act. But, the courts ruled it was a Dead Letter.
Anyway, the clause of the 14th causing so many modern problems says:
quote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This was intended to give the Feds jurisdiction. (A subsequent clause intended to extend BoR protections to state actions.).
However, as the industrial revolution began 2-3 decades later, with corporations gaining power, the Court ruled that corporations are citizens due to the fact that they are legally (although fictionally) "persons" created by legislative fiat. They are "born" legislatively and treated by the law as real "persons." They enjoy the rights of naturally born persons.
They have the same freedom of speech as you or I. The same protection against search and seizure.
The other problem with that clause is that it makes us unique in the world regarding foreign visitors. If a child is born here, he is instantly a citizen. Most countries have a defined process where the citizenship of a child is based upon the citizenship of the parents, and a child may elect to become a citizen of the country after so many years.
So, that clause contributes greatly to our illegal immigration (and, unintended naturalization of the product of both legal and illegal immigrants).
But, it still gets back to how the public is content. These things which are a problem to a few are accepted as the status quo by the vast majority of Americans who are busy working as day laborers to corporations in "at will" states; going home enjoying whatever their consumer-Soma is (video games, reality shows, MP3 downloads).
These laws (or lack thereof) achieve legitimacy due to the consent of the governed. To you and I it looks like a problem. But, nothing will ever change unless there is a serious, even-handed movement to amend the 14th Amendment. Not a bunch of pitchforking Lyndon LaRouche followers, who sound like Charlie Manson. ("Acid's goovey; kill the pigs.").
Mark |
|
1 edit | reply to Anonymous
FTC; Congress looking at enhanced privacy rules/laws The FTC is looking to beef up privacy rules online:
»news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2009120···acyrules
The FTC will look for ways to enforce privacy standards that are "better for consumers and fair to businesses as well," he said.
Some U.S. lawmakers have also talked about introducing comprehensive privacy legislation by early next year. |
|
| reply to Anonymous
Re: Why? The good news is there are still people and websites willing to put their neck on the line to ensure the public stays informed.
Good job boys |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Easier way of saying it, the only right to privacy you have it whats in your brain. No hooking up to the electroshock machine with a lie detector until the right answer comes out. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: FTC; Congress looking at enhanced privacy rules/laws Privacy rules mean nothing. Lets talk about data retention. Everything is accessible through a subpoena. Sadly you can't recover the contents of previous phone calls unless your the NSA. I've tried in a court case. Only call records, not contents :-( |
|
