 |
 | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Cut off the head... go after the ones that GAVE THE DATA WITHOUT A WARRANT: AT&T and VERZION.
this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. | |
|
| | 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Cut off the head... How their legal departments didn't see this coming from miles away is baffling
But if Verizon and AT&T are liable, so are those in gov't who took the information. Those people responsible should be sent to jail. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by DotMac  :But if Verizon and AT&T are liable, so are those in gov't who took the information. Those people responsible should be sent to jail. Unfortunately, there's a little thing getting in the way of suing the government for asking for the information in the first place: sovereign immunity | |
|
| | |
| | | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Cut off the head... said by amigo_boy :said by morbo :this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault. Can you guys quote the founders for that high-minded principle? Mark But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we??
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by ropeguru :But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we?? Is that an argument for trying all crimes in a civil court just because "it's easier?" We don't do that when other crimes have been committed. We're only doing it in this case because those who insist a crime occured can't rise to the level required to prove the crime (court of impeachment). They can't even prove it by taking telcos to criminal court.
Instead of sucking it up, and focusing on changing the government, they're simply resorting to civil court -- while quoting the founders to make it sound like they're the true, pure defenders of freedom and Constitutionality.
To me, it's as disgusting as what they accuse the telcos of. I wouldn't be proud of it. And, it's why the EFF doesn't speak for me.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: Cut off the head... Civil court is where you sue a company for violating its stated privacy policy. It's also where you recover damages for violation of the wiretap act. Yell at Congress if you don't like it, they wrote the laws allowing such suits. | |
|
| | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by wierdo :Civil court is where you sue a company for violating its stated privacy policy. It's also where you recover damages for violation of the wiretap act. Yell at Congress if you don't like it, they wrote the laws allowing such suits. I wish you guys would get your stories straight. All we hear about is how a "crime" was committed, and the telcos should be held responsible for their "criminal acts." When it's pointed out that "criminal" court is the place to prove such a claim, not "civil" court, suddenly it's about contractual violations and "damages." The same lower standards that to hot coffee to being banned.
But, all the while we're to remember that self-styled freedom fighters are pure, following the Constitution, and saving us from the pragmatists. (wink).
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: Cut off the head... Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by ieolus :Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no? If your 4th amendment rights are being violated, you file a claim with the Department of Justice who can pursue criminal statutes if it involves a criminal conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. Since the alleged conspiracy was led by the President, you would presumably seek articles of impeachment, thus making conviction of the remaining/lessor conspirators easier.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| You guys? You obviously have me confused with some other people.
Stop painting yourself as the defender of all that is good and right with the world.
Also, criminal actions are often also civil torts. Learn about the legal system before you comment further and make yourself look more like a fool. (Some criminal laws even go so far as to create a private cause of civil action, like many environmental laws) | |
|
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by wierdo :Some criminal laws even go so far as to create a private cause of civil action, like many environmental laws This one doesn't. You're right that you can go to civil court for damages arising from a criminal action. But, normally people first try to prove their claim of criminal action. The Constitution provides for impeachment. And, the Justice Department is the place to go if your rights have been criminally violated. Self-styled freedom fighters can't rise to either of those standards. So, they're just skipping it. Resorting to the same court where awards are handed out like the lottery.
Telco customers will face higher costs. Self-styled freedom fighters will feel vindicated. But, in the end the original claim that "a crime was committed" won't be proven.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Cut off the head... said by amigo_boy : Resorting to the same court where awards are handed out like the lottery. Telco customers will face higher costs. Self-styled freedom fighters will feel vindicated. But, in the end the original claim that "a crime was committed" won't be proven. Mark You seem unaware that often the result of civil cases is not an award of damages but an injunction against further commission of the same acts.
For someone who doesn't even believe the telcos did anything wrong, you seem awfully obsessed with someone proving they committed a crime. Listen to too much Rush lately?
Given that you continue making demonstrably false claims like "awards are handed out like the lottery," I think I'm about done with you. Thanks for playing. If you'd like to continue this conversation, please bring a factual basis to your next response.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by wierdo :You seem unaware that often the result of civil cases is not an award of damages but an injunction against further commission of the same acts. If an AT&T customer wants to go to court to seek an injunction, go ahead. My guess is that a court would dismiss it on the basis that you can "vote with your feet." It doesn't take the EFF to do this for any individual customer.
Again, I wish you guys would get your stories straight. Others are talking about "hitting the telcos where they'll feel it" (monetarily, which you'd think "voting with your feet" would have accomplished already.).
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by morbo :any billion dollar judgement against AT&T = higher costs, lower stock price, etc. that must be passed along to their customers. that means higher prices. that means their competitors get more market share. that results in less money for AT&T. that = justice. If AT&T customers cared, wouldn't they just leave? Why the contorted means to an end? First we hear how the President committed a crime. But, you can't prove that in a court of impeachment. The telcos committed a crime. But, you can't get the AG to file criminal charges. You'll sink to civil court to impact the telcos financially. You blame the telcos sinking to payola to buy legislation in response to your own lowered standards. And, you want to speak for AT&T customers (in a class action suit) to impact AT&T in ways customers won't.
Why don't you just admit it, you have no more principles than the people you claim to be fighting against.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | TechGuy99
join:2003-09-15
Flushing, NY
2 edits | said by amigo_boy :If an AT&T customer wants to go to court to seek an injunction, go ahead. My guess is that a court would dismiss it on the basis that you can "vote with your feet." AT&T and Verizon are MAJOR operators of both ILEC and internet switches. By giving access to their networks and peering points they not only gave access to their own traffic but the traffic of EVERYONE who uses their network. THAT'S MOST OF THE VOICE AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE ENTIRE INTERNET TRAFFIC OF THE UNITED STATES! And yes, that includes any data/voice from Qwest that just happened to take a single hop into/out of their networks. There is no opting out. There is no walking away. There can’t be. There are no competitors!
And before you say that this is a private matter, the extensive rights of way needed to form a new major telco are an extremely limited commodity. It is impossible for any modern company to acquire them. Unless you wish to go back to the robber baron days of yore, or would prefer to see the government claim eminent domain so that a private party can dig up your backyard to lay fiber, there will never be another true competitor.
This was an extreme abuse of power and trust.
The matter of those in the government attempting to, and succeeding in, garnering such information is a separate issue. A company entrusted with such an incredible amount of power, when it would not have received that power without the help of the government, and therefore the people of the United States of America, must be held liable when it violates that trust!
They must not be allowed to commit such abuses no matter who is in office! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by TechGuy99 :AT&T and Verizon are MAJOR operators of both ILEC and internet switches. By giving access to their networks and peering points they not only gave access to their own traffic but the traffic of EVERYONE who uses their network. Which tends to prove my point about how ridiculous it is for someone to use the Internet and claim a privacy expectation. Especially if they don't use encryption. Their communications will travel through companies with whom they have no contractual relationship. Wasn't this the primary basis for developing SSL, SSH, sftp, etc?
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | TechGuy99
join:2003-09-15
Flushing, NY
| Re: Cut off the head... said by amigo_boy :Which tends to prove my point about how ridiculous it is for someone to use the Internet and claim a privacy expectation. Especially if they don't use encryption. Their communications will travel through companies with whom they have no contractual relationship. Wasn't this the primary basis for developing SSL, SSH, sftp, etc? Mark Of course there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Just because a phone line crosses over a neighbor's yard does not mean they have the right to listen in on your private phone calls. The telcos have no right to hand over your private calls and/or data to a third party without EXPLICIT notification or unless ordered to do so by a legal warrant. And in the case of a warrant only the voice and data that is explicitly requested is allowed to be transferred. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| I see, so if I lease a line from my ISP who in turn leases it from AT&T, it's OK for them to dump my traffic because it happens to be muxed onto a fiber that also carries some of their Internet traffic?
Or more apropos, say I lease a line to connect my locations in (for example) Arizona and Alabama. These days, that's mostly done by using the network provider's IP circuits, on which they run MPLS to essentially tag each packet with the ID of the virtual circuit it belongs to. So here I am paying for a private circuit, yet when AT&T decides to hand off all their traffic, mine goes through also.
Contrary to popular belief, it's not just the Internet anymore, as essentially every national network provider transports every circuit, private and otherwise, over the same fiber, using technology like MPLS to separate out the various services. In many cases (say if Level3 is participating in this or a similar scheme, as it's widely known they do this), voice traffic is also affected, since many providers now use VoIP internally on MPLS virtual circuits to transport the voice traffic.
So yes, services on which one, by law has an expectation of privacy are also being monitored. Hell, if you bothered to read the ECPA (1986), you'd know that by law you have an expectation of privacy with data services as well. E-Mail, for one, is specifically named.
Encryption was primarily about hiding your sensitive information from the government, it was (and remains) hiding it from ne'er do wells who would intercept your sensitive information in transit. Thieves, that is.
Do some research before you mouth off. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | well said. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by morbo :but the reality is that it is another forum for justice when the other forum is more difficult, for the time being... If the police and state AGs used civil court because "it's easier" (to get around those annoying hurdles criminal court imposes), self-styled freedom fighters would be screaming!
Pot, kettle, black.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by morbo :if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity? If a law was broken, why are self-styled freedom fighters resorting to *civil* court?
If I had a bunch of people seeking to bypass criminal court, relying on ambulance chasers and the nearly non-existent standard of civil court, I'd be nervous too. Just the cost of litigation under those lower standards could be enormous.
They're facing the same thing you are. You can't rise to the standards of criminal court. So, you lower yourself to civil court. Why should the fact that telcos are trying to defend themselves from *that* cheap shot be indicative of their guilt? Don't you have the burden of rising to the standard of criminal court? It seems like you're blaming the telcos for your own diminished standards.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | The hot coffee was from a broken machine that was boiling the coffee and the McDonalds in question had been warned many times prior to it becoming a civil matter.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
| | | | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: Cut off the head... And as a side note, every other citizen of the world knows that coffee is made with boiling water, and that boiling water scalds in seconds. My 3 year old kid knows that.
A Mexican, english or indian person would have said "awwww cr@p! that hurts!!"
But in the USA, no... the government has to legislate to protect its citizens against their own stupidity.
I can't wait to see the first case when someone is going to burn himself with its stove, and sue cause the plate was too hot... Will we then regulate all stoves, and therefore make it impossible for a whole country to sear meat and boil water on the stove?
--
"Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough"
Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner | |
|
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
1 edit | Re: Cut off the head... said by LilYoda :And as a side note, every other citizen of the world knows that coffee is made with boiling water, and that boiling water scalds in seconds. My 3 year old kid knows that. And most coffee drinkers in America know that the coffee that comes out of their coffee makers won't scald them nearly instantly, since they don't boil water, since boiling the water makes for nasty coffee.
McDonald's was in fact keeping their coffee hotter than any other restaurant, arguably so that it would stay hot longer.
Right wing smear radio did an excellent job of blaming the victim in this particular instance, so that they could advance their idiotic "tort reform" agenda. I believed it for a long time, until someone pointed out that I would do well to learn more about the lawsuit rather than shooting my mouth off without knowing what I was talking about.
Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand, other than it being used by people who would have an irrational hatred of civil lawsuits.
Edited to remove erroneous temperature reference | |
|
| | | | | |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
2 edits | Re: Cut off the head... First of all boiling water makes excellent coffee, that's how expresso pressure machines work 
»www.boyds.com/coffee/brewingguide.html
quote:
A second requirement of water for good coffee brewing is the water temperature as it passes over the coffee grounds. Ideal brewing temperature is 200°F, plus or minus 5°F (at sea level).
If you read about the lawsuit here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
You will see that McDo's coffee IS made with near-boiling water. What they had to do is reduce the temperature at which it is served to the customers. So basically, they have to reduce the temperature of an inherently scalding hot product so that careless people don't hurt themselves.
The same lawsuit was rejected in the UK by the way, the court recognising that
quote:
If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C (149 °F) will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55–60 °C (131–140 °F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85–95 °C (185–203 °F)
IIRC, the maximum allowed serving temperature for coffee was lowered in the US in the aftermath of the McDo's coffee lawsuit
Secondly, I'm no rightwing smear radio listenner, nor do I have an agenda. Just pointing out that some civil lawsuits, including the coffee one, tend to go overboard and lead to legislation to protect people from their own stupidity.
Anyway, as you said this is off topic, I was just responding to yet another claim that McDo was right and the plaintiff was the most innocent people on earth. In this specific case, she was stupid or careless enough to burn herself with a product she should have been careful about, if she had an ounce of common sense...
--
"Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough"
Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner | |
|
| | | | | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | I think you missed the point. In normal circumstances I would agree with you, I even used to until I had to review the case.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
| | 
Rob 23
| What head ? AT&T merged with comcast in nov 2002, All the (dirty deed doers) Now work for AT&T/COMCAST, broadband and circuit switched phone moved to AT&T/comcast. The CEO of AT&T took over as the head of AT&T/COMCAST until he retired in 2004. verizon is in this because of the MCI merger and that CEO is history. | |
|
| | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: Cut off the head... said by Rob 23 :
What head ? AT&T merged with comcast in nov 2002, All the (dirty deed doers) Now work for AT&T/COMCAST, broadband and circuit switched phone moved to AT&T/comcast. The CEO of AT&T took over as the head of AT&T/COMCAST until he retired in 2004. verizon is in this because of the MCI merger and that CEO is history.
Please tell me you are joking, right? Everything you stated above is incorrect.
Here's what really happened:
-AT&T bought Mediaone Cable back in 2000.
-Less than 2 years later AT&T sells off its cable division (old mediaone) to Comcast. There was NO merger or partnership between Comcast or AT&T.
-AT&T is purchased by Southwest Bell (SBC) in 2005. The newly combined company is managed and run by SBC, but because of the well established AT&T brand, they decide to keep AT&T as the name. | |
|
| | | |
Rob 23
| Re: Cut off the head... HI COD. Can you take a look at this? »www.corp.att.com/news/2001/12/19-4135 and this »www.comcast.com/about/pressrelea···prid=291 IT was a 72 BILLION dollar merger. sbc merger was for att long distance network,it was for 16 billion So if you look at the dollar value ATT/COMCAST is 80% of the old AT&T. SO comcast received att broadband customers and local circuit switch voice customers.and the att ceo cio and others moved to att/comcast. | |
|
| | | | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Cut off the head... said by Rob 23 : HI COD. Can you take a look at this? » www.corp.att.com/news/2001/12/19-4135 and this » www.comcast.com/about/pressrelea···prid=291 IT was a 72 BILLION dollar merger. sbc merger was for att long distance network,it was for 16 billion So if you look at the dollar value ATT/COMCAST is 80% of the old AT&T. SO comcast received att broadband customers and local circuit switch voice customers.and the att ceo cio and others moved to att/comcast. The merger was between Comcast and AT&T Broadband. There were no voice circuits included in the merger. You have no idea what you are talking about as COD pointed out.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by gatorkram :Cut off the head of the snake, if you expect to kill it. These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it.
Go after the ones who asked for the data in the first place. Eisenhower?; JFK? etc. Every administration since the cold war began has had access to this info.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| |
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Cut off the head... Oh, so that makes it okay. | |
|
| | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Cut off the head... said by DotMac :Oh, so that makes it okay. It makes it OK by me because they are using the capability to protect the US from those who would do the whole country harm. And it is also OK by a majority of the Senators, including Democrats.
»news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071217/pl_···nes_dc_3
Backers of immunity, who include some Democrats as well many of Bush's fellow Republicans, contend companies should be thanked, not punished, for helping defend the United States.
| |
|
| | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Cut off the head... said by GOLFnSUN :And it is also OK by a majority of the Senators, including Democrats. I don't know. Maybe the Democrat party is trying to convince people that they actually love the USA. 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | 
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| Except when they DON'T use it for that or bust the wrong folks... Lets see- we have several hundred prisoners in Cuba - only 80 are expected to face charges...
Lovely - the potential for incredible misuse or frankly - the wrong interpretation (remember - the justification for going into Iraq was with incorrect data and other data was ignored to justify the invasion) can lead to many years of no trial for US citizens and possibly no contact with lawyers to boot.
Sorry - terrorism has been around BEFORE there were telephones - if they have evidence then let them get a warrant but they don't get free reign stomp all over the Constitution because they are the govt.
Just because Democrats and Republican's want to trample the Constitution and break their sworn job to UPHOLD the Constitution, does not mean they are right to do so. This type of thing is what the Constitution is supposed to protect the citizens from but instead it is being ignored by both parties. nothing like irrational fear brought to you by the govt to justify ignoring the Constitution. | |
|
| |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by gatorkram :These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it. Go after the ones who asked for the data in the first place. That's exactly the point isn't it? We hear people say a crime was committed. But, those same people can't rise to the level of proving a crime through a court of impeachment. They want to lower the standard to proving those who followed the so-called ringleader committed a crime. But, they can't rise to that level either. So, they'll settle for "bleed 'em dry" civil court. The same place where hot coffee was abolished. Where cases are viewed as your chance to win the lottery.
And all the while we're to remember these are the high-minded folk, following the Constitution, taking the high road, quoting the founders (often out of context) to prove how different they are from the dirty pragmatists.
Mark | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| NoOneButMe
join:2001-08-24
TX | didnt quest tell the feds to goto H3ll ? so the rest could have allso done the same but thay wanted something you know thay got something in return | |
|
| | |
| tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
 ·Speakeasy
| said by gatorkram :Cut off the head of the snake, if you expect to kill it. These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it. No.. they were bribed into doing it.
That makes them co-conspirators to the crimes in question.
Why do you think all the recent Federal government communications contracts where awarded to everybody except "Quest" (who refused)?? | |
|
| 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL | Yeah its not like the government to have pushed them around b4 and force them to splinter their companies. 
/The biggest monpoly we have is government... | |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Stike out? Can we have the strike out fixed? | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Stike out? No. The strike out is making a point. | |
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, MI
1 edit | I wish I could do anything I wanted and then just have a law passed to retro actively make it legal. One more year of this, just one more year, unless of course Bush decides he should be the supreme ruler for life. | |
|
| |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | pffttt...... Just remember who these morons are and vote them out of office, Fu#k em all. These jerk offs are pissing away our hard fought/earned freedoms, and they need to suffer for it. this is a sad day for all americans.
--
BlooMe | |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
1 edit | Kommie Karl Strikes Again Kommie Karl and his opinion again...I thought it was actual news until I saw who wrote it. His ability to blur the facts is as creative as his comprehension of the facts. | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| Problem is... If AT&T is made to pay, customers (who were the ones wronged here) lose with higher rates and no one other than bloodsucking ambulance chasing lawyers win just as they always do with these BS class action suits.
--
~ Project Hope ~
Team Discovery | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Dodd is a Poor Drama Queen quote:
... I have seen six presidents — six in the White House ...
Where else would most presidents be?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| 
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC | Re: Dodd is a Poor Drama Queen He could have seen them on TV. | |
|
| 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18 | In an undisclosed secure location.... oh you meant the 'visible' president.
sorry. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Dodd is a Poor Drama Queen said by firephoto :In an undisclosed secure location.... oh you meant the 'visible' president. sorry. True. I could have been talking about this guy for all you know. Next time I will be more specific.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
cspan_watcher
@rcn.com | not so fast Dodd is leading a filibuster starting today of the new FISA bill with telecom immunity. | |
|
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| This was merely the cloture vote... Which ends the debate on the bill (S2248)
If you really want to make a difference, get on the horn NOW to both of your senators and tell them to vote this bill down. Everyone who calls makes a difference. Want to make a bigger difference? Write a hand written letter to them, telling them to defeat S2248. It's time to take it into the streets. Demand that the senators whose salary YOU pay, serve the people, and not the corporations who give them contributions. If you don't vote for them, they would be out of a job. I'm on the horn with Schumer's office right now. Is his aide going to hear it from me... AGAIN! Hillary is next.
Don't question it, JUST DO IT, because it's the only way that we have any chance of seeing another bad piece of legislation passed, and our rights eroded even more, in the name of corporate interests.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| |
| |
Rob 23
| Re: history. People need to look at the history of this,the AT&T of 2001 is AT&T broadband - local circuit switched phone and long distance. In Nov 2002 AT&T local phone & broadband merged with comcast to become AT&T/comcast, The CEO and most of the upper management are now with comcast. The issue is local phone records. AT&T is now two diff company's. SBC merged with AT&T after all this took place. YOU now have AT&T/SBC & AT&T/COMCAST. IT all needs to go away. Just fix the law for today's technology. | |
|
| |
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: This was merely the cloture vote... said by GOLFnSUN :You can use this site to find how to contact your senators and encourage them to vote for telco immunity. » www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Why the heck would I want to encourage my elected officials to vote FOR telco immunity? I do not believe that the telcos should be granted immunity, and should be held accountable for giving away our fourth amendment rights, as defined in the Constitution. After all, this is a country of laws and not corporations.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
tbsteph
join:2002-01-31
Maylene, AL
·AT&T Southeast
| Unbelievable Unbelievable how many of you want to not only cripple our nation's ability to protect us from terrorism but want to somehow punish corporations who cooperate. I have a much bigger problem with those who refused to do so *Quest, I believe.) They deserve the punishment not AT&, Verizon etc. Your "politics" appears to override any common sense. | |
|
| 
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| Re: Unbelievable Right, because letting government decide whats good for all of us and trample over existing laws under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' is the best course of action. Who needs checks and balances? Heck, I hear it has worked wonders for Russia.
Qwest deserves a medal, and I'm glad for once MN is in Qwest territory. | |
|
| |
| | MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: Unbelievable It is not drivel coming out. Over two hundred years ago many people fought for the rights that we are now taking for granted. If you have not read the Declaration of Independence recently, it would be a good idea to read it now. Granting the president unilateral and unchecked powers will create a modern day King George. | |
|
|
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State | It's Coming Voters will cast their anger, frustration, sorrow and poverty at the next Presidential Election. Don't forget to join the next American Revolution and vote!
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside | |
|
|
|
|
Effort To Scuttle Telecom Immunity Push Fails
·
Effort To Scuttle Telecom Immunity Push Fails?? - not yet