Liability and Lawyer-Grams > read this

reply to rit56

Re: read this

quote:

---

The Los Angeles Times reports that Verizon is already happily sacrificing customer privacy by turning over several subscribers' personal information to the RIAA in the hopes of getting the ruling suspended or modified. Verizon had hoped there could be a limit set on the number of RIAA subpoenas they would have to process, but so far no agreement has been reached.

---

I say again...and the proof of this is....

Just because some hack from the LA Times prints a story, doesn't make it fact. Rather than an LA Times filter it would be nice to see Thorne's comments in context.

--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-31 16:43:46]

It's inferred that Deputy General Counsel John Thorne admits that Verizon made the offer to the RIAA "because it's crucial that Bates' ruling not go into effect". He could be lying, or it may have been yanked from context. But I may be a french poodle and you may be a commie spy if you really want to get technical about our uncertainties of misrepresentation.....I assume the author isn't lying....based on my experience with Verizon, I'll guess they're covering their asses first, worrying about consumer privacy second....

[text was edited by author 2003-01-31 16:47:54]

I'm referring to the conditions that Verizon would agree to submit to the subpoenas. The LA Times article leaves the impression that Verizon is selling out it's existing customers without proof, without due process as the RIAA is trying to do when that may not in fact be the case. I'm not asking if he is lying...but is this the only reason he claimed...what is the context in which this obvious excerpt of a longer sentence was made. Sorry, but the LA Times is not known for unbiased reporting and they have a long history of manufacturing opinion be the omission of fact.

BTW...I am a commie spy but is neither here nor there.
--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-31 16:51:37]

Yes, I understand your point. I'd like to see the entire Thorne interview in context. The author claims both sides confirmed the offer, though perhaps he's lying....

We should see what comes out in the wash (if Verizon denies it, or if a deal is struck). My guess is that Verizon ends up striking a self-centered deal that leaves them free of liability while hanging their users out to dry....

It's the safest and most financially sound outcome for everyone's favorite Darth Vader voiced monopoly...

I can't form an opinion about this "activity" of Verizon without a clearer context of what really happened. Sure, the LA Times makes it out to be that in a secret deal Verizon is offering to sell out customers when in fact there may have been a ton of conditions or prerequisites that Verizon laid out before it would turn a name over, or that only future offenses would be turned over...and only after Verizon notifies customers of a change in privacy policy regarding these activities.

Who knows...but we certainly aren't going to find out from some biased hack at the LA Times.

In the meantime, Verizon is sure spending a lot of money to defend their customers...selfish motives or not...they're doing the right thing in my book. If Verizon does sell out...they will only be the first of ALL ISP's that will end up bending over for the evil forces of the RIAA.
--
Nuclear fission: made in America; tested in Japan.