said by baineschile :

That picture makes me happy.

said by badtrip :

Because of the fact that AT&T was "funneling data wholesale to the government " they will never see another penny from me, ever.

said by Matt :

I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.

said by SLD :

Even if it lead to losing other important Constitutionally protected rights? I mean, if you're willing to give up privacy, why not freedom of speech while you're at it?

said by SLD :

You've obviously never studied Constitutional Law, or truly understand the concept of the "slippery slope".

said by Matt :

For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.

On my "things to worry about meter," this ranks pretty low. It's sits between whether I should have chicken or fish for lunch today and my post-shower decision of boxers or briefs.

said by badtrip :

Wow.

No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court.

You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO.

said by Matt :

You would hold up the constitution as a shield with one hand a seek to supplant ... oh wait, let me start over. You hold up the constitution in one hand yet are willing to discard other basic rights such as the right of "innocent until proven guilty." If the government deems this a critical to national security, too critical to be publicly disclosed, then I trust them.

What I think drives people nuts about things like this is the same basic human trait that many children display. If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.

said by badtrip :

f you mean I want this to be argued in court but Bush/Obama says no and that answer in turn makes me want the issue to be argued in court even more, then I'd agree with you.
Innocent until proven guilty only works when one can actually GO TO COURT.

said by Matt :

If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more.

said by Matt :

For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.

said by cline3621 :

I would ask you to do some reasearch on 'Brandon Mayfield' and his situation with the federal government from 2004-2009 before saying what is quoted above.

Unfortunately, I could not find the link to the Wall Street Journal story that talked about the FBI illegally entering Mr. Mayfields residence without warrant, to set listening devices on his telephones.

said by Matt :

You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them.

said by badtrip :

The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property.

said by Matt :

Who said anything about the police?

said by badtrip :

You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies?

said by Matt :

Then by your logic all governmental agencies are the police? Interesting.

said by Matt :

I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.

said by Matt :

don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.

said by Matt :

I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get.

said by Matt :

I do feel better though, they all "assure" me they take privacy VERY seriously. Whew, thank god for words rather than actions. I was starting to doubt their sincerity.

But I’ve been talking to Dorothy Attwood, AT&T’s chief privacy officer, about this project for several weeks. And it does seem like an earnest effort to lay out for people what AT&T knows about them.

To my reading, there is in fact a directness to the policy that is often lacking. (If you are interested, read it yourself and leave your reaction in the comments.)

The policy is certainly explicit in addressing many practices that other companies gloss over. The site is up front about the fact that it will give information about you in response to government subpoenas, government orders and lawful discovery requests” in civil suits.

AT&T says it will treat as personal “information that directly identifies or reasonably can be used to identify an individual Customer or User.” That definition forces the company to protect anything that a court or regulator might well find can reasonably be used to track someone down.

said by GOLFnSUN :

Well, the NYTimes thinks the new policy is a genuine attempt to tell customers about their rights:...

said by en102 :

Read between the lines...

We WILL NEVER SELL YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION TO ANYONE

It says nothing about under the table 'deals' or 'bartering'. Just because they will not 'sell' it, it doesn't mean they won't give it away.

Also, the 'YOUR' part may be a piece as well.
What is considered 'YOUR' data vs. AT&T's data ?