Slashdot Mirror

Why would he be under any obligation for pay for their education or medical bills? It isn't his kid except in a technical sense.

For medical bills it's the law.

US Court of Appeasls for the Tenth District (html doc online)

• Suzanne Shell, Plaintiff,
• and
• April Fields, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

• Rocco F. Meconi, individually and officially;
• Fremont County Colorado Department of Human Services, officially;
• Steve Clifton, individually and officially;
• Dawn Rivas, individually and officially;
• Todd Hanenberg, individually and officially;
• Dan C. Kender, individually;
• Anna Hall Owen, individually and officially,
• Defendants-Appellees,

and

• Fremont County District Court,
• Defendant.

• No. 04-1133
• (D.C. No. 03-RB-743 (MJW))
• (D. Colo.)

• No. 04-1155
• (D.C. No. 03-RB-743 (MJW))
• (D. Colo.)

• • I. Background

    Ms. Fields's daughter was the subject of a dependency and neglect proceeding initiated by the state of Colorado in January 2003. In connection therewith, the state provided Ms. Fields a court-appointed attorney, Mr. Kender, but Ms. Fields also hired Ms. Shell, a journalist who researches and documents child protection agencies' practices, to act as an expert consultant. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Fields executed a power of attorney naming Ms. Shell as her agent. Ms. Fields also agreed to be included in Ms. Shell's documentary video project concerning child protection services.

    On April 16, 2003, Mr. Meconi, the Fremont County DHS's attorney, filed a motion in state court to make Ms. Shell a special respondent in the pending dependency and neglect action. The motion sought to prevent Ms. Shell "from contacting the minor child or [Ms. Fields] . . . and from otherwise being involved in the proceedings . . . , including, but not limited to, acting as counsel for [Ms. Fields] or otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law."

    [. . .]

    On May 9, after a hearing on the motion to make Ms. Shell a special respondent, the state court issued an order granting the motion, vesting legal custody of Ms. Fields's daughter with the Fremont County DHS, and scheduling a jury trial. In making Ms. Shell a special respondent the court observed that Ms. Shell, "in the guise of acting as the agent" for Ms. Fields, has "essentially been providing legal advice to [Ms. Fields]." The state court further ordered Ms. Shell specifically prohibited from:

    1. Preparing, providing or otherwise generating any legal documents;

    1. Providing any legal advice to [Ms. Fields], regardless of whether she (Suzanne Shell) characterizes it as legal advice or counseling;

    1. . . . having any relationship or contact with [Ms. Fields] at all; [and]

    1. . . . exercising, in any way, the rights or authority expressed in the power of attorney given to her by [Ms. Fields] . . . .

I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to. I don't want to talk with people who don't want to be talked to.

Some people might find my call an important call from an unfamiliar number. You do not. It's an opt-out system; the Do-Not-Call list is an opt-in system. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Do-Not-Call list constitutional. If it was to regulate political calls--which the bill, as you know, does not cover--there would be 1st Amendment issues raised, namely, that freedom of speech shall not be infringed by Congress. The right to talk to people and ask them to buy things is a different right than the right to talk to people about political issue, per the decision. An amendment to the Constitution would likely be required.

Nice ad hominem, too. Because I don't personally advertise my cell phone number to Slashdot... ...my arguments lack merit. No, that doesn't logically follow. Debate me on the merits of my arguments. I feel I'm correct. My email address is listed right there. I'd sooner talk on the phone with the registered Constitution party than I would talk with some guy who called me a political hack on the Internet. on Slashdot.

...Where a driver of an insured car drove to an intersection and removed and carried away the stop sign in the insured car, no coverage exists for the death of a motorist at the intersection because the motorist's death was not causally connected to the use of the insured car.

US West contends the CPNI Order "violates the First Amendment by requiring that carriers secure prior affirmative consents from customers before using individually-identifiable customer information to speak with their customers on an individualized basis about services beyond the 'categories' of telecommunications services to which they currently subscribe." US West's Opening Brief at 22. In other words, US West suggests the CPNI Order unduly limits its ability to engage in commercial speech with its existing customers regarding new products and services it may offer.

US West also claims the CPNI Order "restricts the ability of carriers to share and use CPNI internally to have different divisions, affiliates, and personnel within the same carrier communicate information to each other (i.e., to speak to each other), absent a prior affirmative consent from the customer."

For example, petitioner could use CPNI obtained through the provision of local service to market other local service products, but not cellular services. Moreover, if the customer subscribes to both local and long-distance services, petitioner could use the CPNI to market either service and could exchange the CPNI between affiliates that provide such services, but petitioner could still not use the CPNI to market cellular services.

We vacate the FCC's CPNI Order, concluding that the FCC failed to adequately consider the constitutional ramifications of the regulations interpreting 222 and that the regulations violate the First Amendment.

• Privacy Digest: Wednesday, August 25, 1999.

  "CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999.

  A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.

  The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.

  "FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.

• Privacy Digest: Saturday, August 28, 1999.

  Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?.

  A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.

  But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.

  The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.

• Privacy Digest: Monday, November 1, 1999.

  ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy.

  In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.

  The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.

  The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.

• Privacy Digest: Monday, June 12, 2000.

  Political News from "Wired News" - Court Sides With Telcos on Info.

  The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.

  The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.

While the third judge's ringing dissent demonstrated that there were some serious problems with the resoning and legal basis of the ruling, the Bush FCC, which is said to have a bias toward corporate interests, has thus far failed to appeal it.

Qwest and the other Baby Bells thus feel empowered to violate ALL of the plain language of 47 U.S.C. 222 (part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), which states:

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunication service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.

Yet, the Bells press on to sell users' private information. Apparently, they believe that the agency charged with enforcing the law has been rendered so toothless that they may break the law with impunity. But the fact is that if they implemented the policy stated in their little "notice," they would be breaking the law.

Perhaps it is time for private and/or class action lawsuits, or suits by state Attorneys General, to enforce the provisions of the law? At the very least, states should make the company's proposed conduct illegal and fight attempts to destroy consumer privacy.

--Brett Glass

The phone company owns the wires that carry your conversations. So I guess they have the right to "listen in," since you're using their equipment?

It's not quite that bad, yet, but the courts have ruled the the phone company has the right to sell your phone records; i.e. who you call, how often, and so on. This got some coverage on EPIC , where somebody did their homework and linked to these articles on Wired, MSN, and The New York Times.

Back to the issue: The boss, who "owns your time," wants to make sure he's getting all he's paid for. What's next? No posting of Dibert cartoons on your cubicle, since your co-workers will waste precious man-hours chuckling? No newspapers in tne bathroom, since they tend to encourage extra-long bathroom breaks? No more decaf?

I'm not saying that companies should or shouldn't have an absolute right to record your phone calls, read all your email, and require you to be fingerprinted. I am saying that micro-managerial, reactive approaches to eliminating "wasted time" seldom work. Happy employees free to spend a few moments surfing the web or answering a personal email will be more productive than unhappy employees living in fear of a draconian computer use policy.

Sorry but this assumption is not quite valid anymore. Pleae refer to:
"CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999. A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.

The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.

"FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.

Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?. A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.

But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.

The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.

ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes. The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States. The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.

This is another one of the interesting aspects of the internet that is being sorted out in the Congress and the Courts. It points out the importance of lobbying Congress and having good legal counsel in pivotal cases.