Slashdot Mirror
Telecoms Facing $50 Billion Lawsuit for Wiretaps
hdtv writes "According to a MarketWatch article, BellSouth Corp and Verizon Telecommunications are facing lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the decision to turn over calling records to the government. The damages amount to $1,000 per person, whose records were turned over to Feds. According to the article, 'consumers could sue the phone service providers under communications privacy legislation that dates back to the 1930s. Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.'"
I expect the lawsuits to collapse, or at least gimp along on two broken legs at that point.
"National Security" has become the new "We Do This For Our Children".
*Stomps away in disgust*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
What we need is an itelligent judge that isn't afraid to intepret the law and who will stand up for the American citizens of this country. I don't deny that we're in a time where we need some kind of safety net, but we don't need to give our liberties. If this all keeps going on the way it has been, the terrorists the gov't is seeking so hard to stop will win by splitting America apart.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Why should we have our privacy invaded if we aren't doing anything illegal/covert?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?
Very well, let's see if you'll answer that. Presumably you're not doing anything illegal or covert?
Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.
If you're not comfortable with that information being in the hands of strangers...then you're concerned about privacy.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Surely you're not implying the administration uses the Problem-Reaction-Solution tactic to influence public opinion?
The telecoms in question (Verizon, SBC/AT&T and BellSouth) handed records over whereas Qwest did not. Assuming there was bullying, it wasn't enough to convince Qwest's previous CEO in the past and current CEO. More likely the other three RBOCs handed over the records with no questions asked.
"...without paying the fee?"
and we wonder why the rest of America is a bunch of bitches...
Idiot
You have a very active imagination there. Maybe they took a couple of whacks at your kids with a nightstick while they're at it? Afterall, that 6 year old looked like he was going for a gun. You know what would really happen? The guys would show up, interview you and maybe ask if you could help them catch the guy. Why would you want to protect a criminal anyway?
I was kinda stupid when I was 18 too.
This space available.
What constitues illegal/covert activities? To sensible citizens of a representative democracy, we may be doing nothing wrong. However, those who are listening may have other ideas. Maybe their idea of subversive activity is voting Democrat, disagreeing with the administration, expressing concern over human rights violations in Palestine, talking about the flaws in the theory of a geocentric universe... Who knows. Maybe the administration is collecting data so Karl Rove can maneuver to keep the same political machine going despite the floundering of his current puppet's public opinion.
The idea that "if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to worry about" implicitly relies upon the benevolence of someone with absolute power over all functions of government. More often than not, history has shown that relying on the benevolence of dictators is a bad idea.
The response I received when expressing this to one of the 'true believers' was "why would Bush do that." My response was because people like you let him.
As much as it pains me to say this, I'd rather have Google store all my personal data than any Government have access to it; hypothetically assuming for a moment that the data could only be subpeoned via a "normal" warrant - like in the olden days before all these new Patriot Act type laws.
Now don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the authorities applying for a warrant to listen into my telephone calls/emails etc if they have reasonable suspicion that I am going to commit a crime, or that I have committed a crime. Blanket monitoring with no consideration of presumed innocence is most definitely a big no-no though.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Maybe not. The article quotes Smith vs. Maryland:
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
Now, what the NSA allegedly did is rather more comprehensive, but being able to say "Ah, this phone number we found on this captured terrorist laptop was in contact with phones A, B, and C. Are any of those numbers interesting?" has its merits. There's all sorts of scenarios where it's useful to know who a person of interest has been in contact with.
On a side note, where I live, we had no terrorist attacks since decades. And that's in a country with a -- from your point of view -- extremely leftist government (and yes, we're a true democracy).
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.
I wonder if a nuclear attack will wake them out of their stupor? Alas, probably not. They'll just blame it on Bush.
You really are dangerously stupid.
How is that any better than giving calling patterns to the government? By their own policy, they give personal info away to other companies, at their discretion. To me, that's much more invasive to my privacy.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Probably at least $10 or $20 million in "campaign contributions". Yeah, let us help you out with these phone records, gubmint. And be sure to remember us next time we need something nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
"In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney."
Isn't a "perpetual state of phony war" what this so-called "war on terror" is? I don't see the government doing the logical things to make us safer such as securing our borders, scanning the cargo containers coming into our ports, and adequately funding first responders. The disaster in New Orleans only proves how unprepared we are. And that was a diaster we could see coming, unlike an actual terrorist attack, considering how pathetic the state our intelligence services are.
And what has the government done with is so-called "war on terror?" Aside from Afghanistan, which I believe was more of less justified, it has invaded a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was actually an enemy of Al-Quaeda, engaged in the supression of human rights in places like Guantanamo Bay, and erode the freedoms and privacy of regular Americans. Oh yeah, and they created the department of homeland security. Because more buerocracy means we're safer.
If you believe that the terrorists are out to destroy our way of life, I'd say the terrorists are winning at this rate. Certainly some sacrifices must be made, but this is going too far.
Yes the threat of terrorism is real, but I'm think we have a lot more to fear from our own government than from terrorists.
You must have missed the slashdot article a few days ago about the polling results that show 63% of Americans support the NSA operations.
Oh, I didn't miss it...in fact, I posted in it. Here are a few more posts which do an excellent job of pointing up just why that 'poll' was bogus:
And you're paranoid too. Are you actually suggesting that the gov't is orchestrating terrorist attacks to consolidate its power?
Take a good hard look at the A HREF="http://www.physics911.net/faketerror.htm">a
And now, after you're done crowing about what a 'moonbat' site I've just linked to, take a deep breath, try to be objective, and actually look this time. All of your denunciations of 'ridiculous conspiracy theories' won't change the characteristics of ASTM E119 cettified steel, or alter the building specifications of the WTC towers, or somehow account for approximately 60 tons of missing aircraft debris at the Pentagon.
Here's what's so ironic about the whole issue. The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters.
For the last three years, I've been snapping my fingers to keep the tigers away. I'm proud to announce that since enacting the practice, I've gone three solid years without a tiger attack.
In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.
And that's exactly what the majority of the brainwashed populace in 1984 were led to believe. Well done.
I wonder if a nuclear attack will wake them out of their stupor? Alas, probably not. They'll just blame it on Bush.
Of course I'll blame it on Bush, since he'll be the one to instigate the attack. Question is, when that happens, will it be enough to wake you out of your stupor?
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Odds are it won't.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
More monitoring than the NSA does is done by many entities in our everyday lives, like your ISP, your bank, your cell phone provider, etc. You give more personal data than this to rent a video or save $0.45 at Albertsons. The NSA can't legally (and no one is seriously alleging they have) done any more than see what phone NUMBER is calling what other phone NUMBER. Anything more intrusive requires a court order and the FBI's involvement. Since this has been going on since 2001 without apparant cataclysmic consequences to civil liberties (name me one innocent person who was harmed by this), and we have, by NSA's assertion, stopped multiple attacks by mining this data, I really fail to see the harm. Just another excuse to blame Bush for doing his job. Most of those complaining about it would complain that the government didn't do enough if we were attacked without doing this.
- Domestic spying is costly for telecoms
- Domestic spying could reveal trading secrets
- Domestic spying accelerates standard encryption
An other reason for hope is the existence of organizations like EFF or ACLU.Snooping and tapping activities at the boundary of legality have made me worried, but costly legal lawsuits could be a good medicine. Like chemotherapy against cancer. Better would be strict laws which prevent such abuse. Lets see how the law dragons fight the snooping hydra.
There is an other issue which could prevent that we slip into a totalitarian state: telephone calling records of industry decision makers are valuable information. The database can give hints about mergers, stock market developments (company X has suddenly a lot of phone-calls with company Y. Do they merge? Do they launch a new product, lets buy or sell stocks accordingly). In a government, for which business is so closely linked to politics, domestic spying could be seen a free ticket for obtaining insider information. That could become a problem, once it is realized that it exists.
A third remedy about the domestic spying issue could be technology: not only standard encryption of telephone calls, but also standard masquerading about who calls whom. Such technology will first be used by people who need protection, not criminals, but CEOs or engineers working on new technology, which the competition should not know about. Of course, the people who are the primary targets of those stupid spying activities have long gone to other communication channels.
"The Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable."
LOR, Chapter 2, The Passage of the Marshes
Aside from this, a court decision in 1979 about the fourth amendment has little to do with a lawsuit in 2006 about telecom companies breaking the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986-- as the article discusses. Here. Look. I can cut and paste too.
It then sets out various exceptions, listing separate exceptions for "records" and "contents of communications". If the information is obtained accidentally, if people are in immediate danger of death or physical injury and this information is needed to prevent that, that's an excpetion. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children gets an exception, as do persons investigating specific cases of telemarketing fraud. Other "governmental entities", this act outlines in several places, don't. None of the exceptions are protections here.
The section after this one concerns the circumstances under which providers are required to supply information to the government and thus freed from any charges that they shouldn't have supplied the information; and it begins:
and co
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Call me a starry-eyed dreamer, but I love the American system. I love that there are laws, and that despite the fact that people try to circumvent them from time to time - even with the best of intentions, the law eventually catches up with them.
...?
The system is great because it lets citizens participate in the creation and modification of laws over time - so we have a hand in shaping the ever-evolving legal framework underpinning our democracy.
I'm not a legal expert, but even with my layman's understanding of the issue, it seems that some bounds have been exceeded and a correction is in order. I'm not crazy about excessive litigation, but if the executives at Verizon and the others illegally provided my phone records to the NSA out of some kind of misguided patriotism - then they are not only bad business leaders but bad citizens. They've let down their employees, their shareholders and their fellow citizens. They should be held accountable.
This isn't immediately about whether tracking citizens' communications is right or wrong. It's about breaking laws. If at some point in the future we want to grant the government the right to track our phone calls without court orders, or whatever, then we should amend the laws accordingly.
Anyway, I'm calling my rep & senator and voicing my opinion. I wonder what conclusions the NSA will make over phone data over the next while. Maybe that people don't like being monitored by government without permission
The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01.
Yeah. They were perfect at preventing domestic terrorist attacks from 04/20/1995 through 9/10/01, too. With that kind of a record, you'd have to trust that their efforts are the reason no attack has happened.
What kind of asinine logic are you using?
We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.
You mean Iraq? The country that was the source of none of the 9/11 bombers? The country where none of the 9/11 bombers trained? The country where terrorists from other places (Saudi Arabia) go to seek out a fight with the US military?
Clue-bat for you: Saddam Hussein was literally created by US foreign policy via the CIA. The misery of his people (and many other groups in that region) was created by US foreign policy over many years. The fact that they hate us is simply chickens coming home to roost. Kill enough fathers and husbands and the kids are going to grow up pissed off. If you don't understand why, then you're stupider than your posting lets on.
You must have missed the slashdot article a few days ago about the polling results that show 63% of Americans support the NSA operations.
You're actually claiming membership with the sheeple? Wow.
Right and wrong don't arise from "majority rules" or "might makes right". Even if I was the only person saying that what our government is doing is flat out wrong while everyone else disagreed, I'd still be right and every single other person would be wrong. Including you.
I wonder if a nuclear attack will wake them out of their stupor?
So, based on the fact that if someone really wants to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil they will, you're also willing to give up all of your freedoms to slow them down a bit?
Doesn't seem like a smart trade to me. I'd rather live in a country where "home of the free" meant something important. Who knows, maybe if we didn't go around killing off democratically elected leaders and replacing them with US-owned despots who destroy the lives of their people, those people wouldn't hate us so much... Nah.
Alas, probably not. They'll just blame it on Bush.
Bush made the underlying problems worse and our country less safe (more terrorists), however, he didn't start the process. He's as much a pawn of the corporations as anyone else these days. Some would go back to MacNamara for the first systematic horrors of US foreign policy, some would go back much further than that (McKinley, Monroe, etc.)
But to understand these names, you'd have to know history, which would imply reading a book. Unlikely in your case. The stupidity of people who think like you make me furious. Every time an American soldier dies, I want to punch someone like you in the face and say, "IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT!" Because you let Bush and the people behind Bush get away with any action or lie they want.
It's not Bush's fault. It's your fault. You elected him, you total and complete fuckwit.
Ross
The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year.
I don't see what the big deal is. Isn't that what a passport is for? That you present it when entering another country? I've always presented my passport (I'm a US citizen, if that matters or not, not sure; probably does given different visa/entry requirements for different countries depending on visitors' citizenships) when crossing a national border. Even when I went to Canada.
I find it kind of amusing that people are grumbling about having to use a document that is intended precisely for the purpose of doing what it is going to be required for! Kind of like freaking out that now you need to actually have a driver's license to drive.
Or am I missing something? I don't know much about the specifics of the controversy.
i am a soviet space shuttle
More attacks are being tried now, and not just in the US.
You need to back that one up. How many "attempted" attacks have there been in the USA before 9/11 and after 9/11?
I'm afraid you're the one with the active imagination, and your head firmly in teh sand.
I'm guessing you have never heard what your government did to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, a software developer who consulted with Mathworks, who was arrested, illegally detained and shipped off to Syria for torture at the behest of the American Government:
I know, I know... why bother to stand up for this guy? After all, he's a friend of a criminal, right? Except that he was an acquaintance, not a friend, and the other guy wasn't a criminal. But then, he's a foreigner, and you're not a foreigner, so you have nothing to worry about.
Just don't wonder why there is no one left to stand up when they finally come for you...
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Here's one simple, easy to digest scenario in which it harmful to society. Understand that I'm not taking a position on it, merely posing a hypothetical situation.
The terrorist-graph program is successful. Law enforcement decides to tweak the algorithms and use it on organized crime. It meets success and becomes part of the standard set of tools. The individuals in charge of this program are dedicated and enlightened and have no desire to abuse the system.
Fast forward 10 years. Most of the people in charge, and all of the political leaders have changed. They've inherited these law enforcement programs. They use them to dig up political dirt or other mischievous, but relatively light weight abuses. It is deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy.
Another 10 years. Corruption is heavy in high level politics. All likely challengers are identified ahead of time and neutralized, either with planted evidence or coercion.
I'm not attempting to make a slippery slope arguement here. Two assertions I'm making are:
Troll Like a Champion Today
"Not really. The troop I was in when I was a boy ,we seperated into 3 smaller groups with a leader each. Then troop had one main leader. The one leader communicated to the 3 sub-leaders and they talked those in their own groups. This is a hierarchical structure and it's prevalent in many social structures. From community groups, church groups, book clubs, political organizations..."
No, Really. Hierarchical structures are very different than cell networks. And it shows, visibly, on a social network diagram.
You said that when you were a boy scout, you seperated into three smaller groups. How did you know there were two other groups besides yours? How did you know that the three sub-leaders reported to the troops' main leader? Already you know that you at one point were in a group that was later divided out into three smaller groups. You might know some of the boys in the othe groups from school, soccer, etc.
If you were being interrogated about your scout troops' structure, you would have a *lot* of info about it. Your interrogators would have a good idea of how many people were in your branch, and what the basic structure is -- one troop leader who oversees three group leaders of boys. You could probably name your leader, the boys in your group, and a few other boys and maybe another leader from your social knowledge outside of the scouts. Also, since you had a meeting where you divided up into groups, you might also recognize the faces of the people you don't know the names of. You might be able to point them out in a photograph.
In a cell network, it's totally different. You only know the other guys in your cell, and maybe one or two leaders that you directly report to. Cells are purposefully kept small -- usually no more than 6-8 people. You have no idea if there are other cells in your locality, or none. Your leaders may claim to be Al-Qaida, but you have no way of knowing. You have no idea who your leaders report to, if anyone. So, if you get caught, you can only rat out the 5 other guys. Even if the cops arrest all six of you, the only intel that the cops get out of all six of you is who your leader is. And if any one of you get caught, you can bet that your leader will suddenly be hard to get a hold of.
Here's a few select quotes from the wikipedia article:
"A covert cell structure is a method for organizing a group in such a way that it can more effectively resist penetration by an opposing organization."
"The organizational structure of covert cells is intended to limit the harm that can be done if members are captured and interrogated. Most members will only know the identities of other people in their own cell; only the leader of a cell will know the identities of leaders of other cells and communicate with them. By keeping cell size small, captives or double agents will have a very limited knowledge of the organization as a whole."
"This approach seeks to protect the larger organization from being compromised. By dividing the organization into many smaller groups, each of which is compartmentalized and only knows what it needs to know for its individual tasks, the damage that can be caused by outside penetration can be greatly reduced. Other cells can continue to operate independently."
That's why terrorist cells are so hard to bust up. Nobody knows anything. Law enforcement keeps encountering information roadblocks every step of the way. However, with social network diagram that included every phone call ever made, cell networks would stick out like a sore thumb.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Do you think that the fear we're living under now is anything compared to the fear of the founders as the much larger, better equipped and trained Royal armies attacked?
Yet they believed freedom was more important than life itself. That belief is the foundation of our way of life, and this foundation is under attack. Once we lose these freedoms, they will be almost impossible to recoup without force.
What unmitigated cowards are the people who are willing to cede freedoms to terrorism. And furthermore, there is no proof that ceding these freedoms enables us to better fight terror.
To the founding fathers, we would look like a bunch of cowards and ingrates. They would be horrified to see the legacy they struggled and died to create collapsing under the comparatively tame threat of terrorism.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
You must be pretty young, it never used to be required to cross the Canadian border.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
To catch terrorists this way. By now, everyone, including the terrorists, have figured out that the phone lines are insecure. Those who have something to hide are already using different forms of communication.
The only possible effective use of this system today is to stifle the political dissent of law abiding citizens.
It has never been about catching terrorists or protecting children. Yes, occasionally such eavesdropping has helped solve criminal cases; but the primary purpose has always been the suppression of political dissent.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
by an anonymous Vietnam Combat Veteran speaking out from overseas Why am I being spied upon and discriminated upon just because I live outside the United States? This by the very country that I fought in a war for and the country to I sacrificed twenty years of my life to. Recently a large controversy developed in which it came to light that the National Security Agency has been obtaining the calling records or American citizens throughout our country in the hope of identifying Terrorist communications methods and links. Now think about this, they state that they want to monitor all numbers without having listened to a call and that should help them. If they know who the bad guys and their phone numbers, get a warrant and listen and then act according the information gathered. Fishing, under the Constitution is not allowed! Their alleged defense is that they are doing so in protecting us from Terrorist, who recently seem to have become the cause for everything including spoiled milk and the avian flu. In an effort to stave off a mass denouncement of these actions by the public, President Bush, on 11 May 2006 took the unprecedented step, of making an immediate rebuttal statement on the situation through the means of a news conference. See the following Internet link for more on the story: (http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns a_x.htm?POE=click-refer) During this particular speech President Bush, as quoted by USA Today, insisted that the NSA was focused on international calls. "In other words," President Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States." Last year President Bush publicly stated he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and international emails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA, however, this did not come to my attention until this recent uproar and seems to be more prevalent than to only cover those of suspected links to terrorism. This is based from the most recent allegations and the past capabilities of places such as RAF Chicksands, in the United Kingdom and other vast data collection points, worldwide, which work very closely with the NSA. Now that brings me into the picture. I am a retired Vietnam Combat veteran, living in Asia. Am I exempt from the United States Constitution? It subsequent Laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States? Am I a lesser citizen? I see this as a direct violation of my rights under the United States Constitution, Article IV, perpetrated by the NSA, but ultimately authorized through Executive Order from the President of the United States. Now I know that the President has the power of Executive Orders, but, after reading a lot of material, I found again and again that his Executive Orders could never violate my Rights under the Constitution. Or am I wrong? Further reading of the article from USA Today, indicates that the Telephone companies, sold the information to the NSA, as specifically prohibited by law. The law further states that such violations are punishable by fines $300,000 per violation. See excerpts of Section 222 of the Communications Act and amendments below in italics: (4) PROHIBITION OF SALE OF GENERAL OR DETAILED INFORMATION- Except for the purposes for which use, disclosure, or access is permitted under subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, rent, lease, or otherwise make available for remuneration or other consideration the customer proprietary network information (including the detailed customer telephone records) of any customer.'. Section 202(a)(1)(E) requires the prior express authorization from a customer before a telecommunications carrier may disclose or permit access to a wireless telephone number. This language is intended to limit the ability of carriers to create a telephone directory of wireless telephone numbers without obtaining the express consent of its customers. Section 203(i)(1) increases
Which war are you talking about? The one on false pretexts (WMD) to invade an oil rich country and topple a dictator we installed (Saddam) or the upcoming one against another oil rich country which hasnt done anything illegal (allowed nuclear fuel cycle acc to the NPT). :)
How about instead of waging illegal wars we cut the size of our military spending from about equal to the rest of the world put together to a tenth of that and use the money to repay our debt to china and research alternative fuel sources eliminating the need to invade countries on false pretexts
Btw watch The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear...very enlightening (by the BBC)
I'm quite sure that I'm paying more that $1000 in taxes quite regularly, although I would still pay $1000 more if I could buy my privacy.
You had a real, defined, in-the-open, enemy to fight, old man.
Talk about having it easy!
+++OK ATH
Wrong. The WaPo poll broke several basic norms used by polling organizations. The most basic problem with the poll was strongly leading language in the questions.
Do some googling on the WaPo pollster - Morin. He's damaged goods, and he's slanted other polls for political effect. Call him sometime and ask him why he hasn't run a poll to see how many Americans favor impeaching the president.