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.'"

Comments

Until the government says "National Security"

[Chas]

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*

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The telecommunications companies allegedly complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records"

Heh. Good luck getting the NSA to testify to that.

I suspect this suit has legs. A company like Qwest does not tell the gov't to shove off lightly so you've got to figure that they saw this suit coming and decided that they couldn't win it. If the NSA decides to help the telcos (with the Administration's record, there's no reason to think that they will) they can do so by fessing up (not bloody likely) or trying to suppress all the evidence in the name of National Security. Since this is a civil suit, that plus the bits that do leak through should be sufficient to indicate that it happened and that the parties concerned had reasons to doubt the legality.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[cluckshot]

I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security. What is more it has only one obvious conclusion for its objective. That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on. Please understand, I have read the requests for proposals and looked at bidding on the contracts to provide the service that now serves the NSA and the CIA and several US DOD operations. I know exactly what I am talking about here. This is not a supposition.

The programs involved were not simply limited to acquiring the phone numbers dialed and times of calls etc like portrayed. The data was collected under the direction of Admiral Poindexter who was removed but the contracts and work continued. The program was to provide Total Information Awareness.

The level of information mined includes 100% of all commercial database data that could be obtained. This was not necessarily limited to the amount of data "Legally" obtainable. It included software engines to recognize speach, pictures and to even identify where a picture was taken, when and what angles etc. It was not limited to metadata either. The engines would generate contextual metadata on their own. The intent was to be able to listen electronically to 100% of all world wide phone, fax and internet traffic with full understanding and full cross reference of data. The computer networks and engines to do this are very big and do exist. The US Government under this routinely intercepts a large amount of data and has search engine skill applied to the output.

My company would not bid on the contracts even though we would do some things because some of us in the company were not invertebrates. We could see that this had no purpose regards the military GWAT (Global War On Terror). It was a level of spying and information gathering that clearly had no innocent purpose.We had other contracts which were also out of Admiral Poindexters office.

It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system. Their hand carried and simple word swap encryption (Private Codes) work well against such an engine. Bojinka for example would have had no meaning until an arrest was made.

The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)

Rest assured that recording of your phone numbers and who you called is not even significant to this operation. The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days. Do what you will with this information. You now know the level of the data collection. You know know a lot. What we are facing is a situation I described to my nephew one day regards girls. I told him to never do by the dark of night, that which he didn't expect to see on a webcam, because it probably is on a webcam! You have no privacy. The issue is what you do and how you react to it.

Remember that a dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official might well take custody of this data some day. It will all be there just waiting for his use.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[vertinox]

"National Security" has become the new "We Do This For Our Children".

I've been thinking of a new slogan to counter the "National Security" argument.

Cowardice is unpatriotic.

Any time you do something out of fear of your safety you are now unpatriotic.

If anyone ever brings up argument that restricting freedoms and over powerful government is ok because of security concerns, just call him a coward and tell him you just labeled him "unpatriotic" for not being brave like the founding fathers or your grand pappy fighting on the beaches during WWII.

We should accept that our freedom comes at a price, and if we die by the hands of those against our open society than that is what we must accept this cost and we must brave about it.

Caving in to fear is the most "unpatriotic" thing an American can do as a citizen.

Sure, it would be a meme tactic, but I'm tired of seeing people labeled "unpatriotic" because they don't support "national security".

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[tinkertim]

>>Since this is a civil suit, that plus the bits that do leak through should be sufficient to >> indicate that it happened and that the parties concerned had reasons to doubt the legality.

Well this could do a few things .. its also enough to trigger a fed level inquiry if the lawsuit were to gain enough popularity. Any time they play the "Sealed for national security" card people tend to get even more curious. At a potential 1K a pop, people have more reason to be curious if they would qualify , but to do so those records would need to be made available.

Peer pressure is kinda neat :)

If this gets into court and holds ground, now you have a nice front that millions of conspiracy nuts can join into , again needing those records to see if they qualify.

Either way they go, if this gets footing .. the NSA is going to be doing quite a bit of blushing, and the telcoms are going to cry bully. Should be interesting to watch.

Just my take on it anyway :)

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[cold fjord]

So, let me get this straight...

You start off by telling us that you won't tell us what the real purpose of the program is (1), but you tell us that it isn't about national security (2). You tell us, wrongly, that Al Qaeda has nothing to fear from the actual program (3)+(A), not what you describe, which is the Total Information Awareness project. Apparently just on the edge of self-restraint, you let on that the program would be a powerful tool to blackmail members of Congress (4) but don't quite cross the line and tell us directly that political blackmail is the purpose. You finish off with comparisons to secret police, evil regimes, and the Nazi SS (5).

So, basically, you want people to believe that this is all part of a secret plan to subjugate the American people and political system to a new crypto-fascist regime (sorry), and not an actual intelligence program to protect the country.

Remarkably, you want people to believe that a Republican president with only three years left in office, ever, would convince a Republican led Senate and House, still containing members of an opposition party, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an infrastructure to blackmail themselves instead of developing an intelligence capability that would actually be useful to protect them. (I guess you think 9/11 and the anthrax attacks made no impression on them, right?)

What is even more remarkable is that you want us to believe that this is all unrelated to any attempt to stop the on-going efforts by Al Qaeda and its allies to plan and execute more terrorist attacks in the US, the infiltration of the US by hundreds of terrorist group members (who we occasionally catch) and the stated goal of Al Qaeda to kill 4,000,000 Americans. I expect that you also believe it would not help contain the intelligence agents in 3,000 front companies kept by just one foreign government spying on the US, let the lone the (tens of?)thousands more from the other countries on the planet.

You are about up in the league of having a pathological fear of firemen because they carry axes, but being unable to stop yourself from going into burning buildings because they are "warm & cheery" and have good light for reading. What is even more disturbing is that you convinced enough people to get your 5 mod. Ye gods!

1: That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on.
2: I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security.
3: It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system.
4: The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)
5: The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days.
A: If Al Qaeda is hand delivering their messages all around the world, they won't be saying much.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[jabster]

Remember that a dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official might well take custody of this data some day. It will all be there just waiting for his use.

calm down there, Tex.

you dont need a "dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official" to grab the info from the NSA.

You only need someone with enough cash to buy all that info. 2702(c)(6) of the US Code: phone records may be freely disclosed, at the company's discretion "(6) to any person other than a governmental entity."

that's right.

By law, with enough cash, I could personally buy all that phone call info, and donate it to the NSA.

So stop all the crying crap about your "lost privacy.

-john

Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

The unrest against the goverment's tyranny is reaching a critical point.

Expect another 'terrorist act' real soon to distract us from the issue of our eroding civil rights.

Re:Buckle Up

[DrunkenTerror]

Surely you're not implying the administration uses the Problem-Reaction-Solution tactic to influence public opinion?

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

>"You're deluded, dude. 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 are referring to the Washington Posts slanted "snap poll" of only 500 respondents.
Newseeek has conducted a larger poll since with proper methodology and has found:

41% say necessary tool, 53% say goes too far.

Atrios link

In any case, the extent of the violation of my privacy and my rights guaranteed by the constitution are not measured by counting snouts.

Re:Buckle Up

[dorkygeek]

Interesting. So, according to you, before 9/11 there must have been a terrorist attack at least every 5 years in the US. Oooh, there wasn't? But, but, but, how could this be? I mean, it's because of the Bush administration that there are no more terrorist attacks!!! So how does the fact that there were no frequent attacks before 9/11 fit your argument that it was the Bush administration which saved the US from attacks?

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).

Re:Buckle Up

[midimastah]

"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.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

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:

• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153171 88
  
• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153177 59
  
• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153178 06
  
• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153178 68
  
• etc., etc., etc.
  

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">av ailable evidence.

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.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

It gives me an excuse to brag about the fact that I scored in the top 1% on the GRE exam.

Translation: "It gives me an excuse to make a totally apocryphal claim about my intelligence in an effort to intimidate my oppponents into silence."

The GRE (Graduate Records Exam) is the standard test taken by engineering graduates to get into graduate school

Actually, that's not what the official site by Educational Testing Services (ETS) says about the GRE. From the site (emphasis mine):

The GRE® General Test measures critical thinking, analytical writing, verbal reasoning, and quantitative reasoning skills that have been acquired over a long period of time and that are not related to any specific field of study. The GRE® Subject Tests gauge undergraduate achievement in eight specific fields of study.

Now, I'm not maintaining that you didn't have to take the GRE to get into graduate school, but to insinuate that the GRE is for enginerering students only is misleading, throwing further doubt on your apocryphal claims.

If you want us to know how smart you are, quit wasting time with unverifiable claims and, instead, convince us through the strength and cogency of your arguments.

Re:Buckle Up

[rossifer]

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

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

That's a dangerously careless attitude. To illustrate why, I refer you to everend Martin Niemoller's famous poem:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me
  -- and by that time
there was nobody left
to speak up.

Re:Buckle Up

[Jherek Carnelian]

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?

Re:Buckle Up

[scarolan]

The parallels to Orwell's book are quite interesting. One that seems especially appropriate is the way in which the evil dictator gets replaced every few years. In 1984, the enemy was switched from Eurasia to Eastasia (or vice versa), and all the newspaper and historical records were purged of any references to the previous enemy, replacing them with the new one.

In the same way, we went from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, and it looks like the next one is Mohammad Khatami.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

The reason I "bragged" about my math score on the GRE exam is that a) someone explicitly questioned my math ability in a insulting way, and b) it is an objective measure.

As has been said before, your alleged results of the GRE mean little, although you seem to use this argument on a regular basis. From the linked article:

I don't usually brag about myself, but when I am insulted like that I feel that I have the right to brag to some extent. I scored in the top 1% of the Graduate Records Exam (GRE), which is taken by engineering graduates to get into graduate school.

"Don't usually brag", huh? On the contrary, it looks like 'bragging' is your standard M.O..

I have published many papers since then, but they would be more or less meaningless to someone not in my field.

This claim intrigued me, so I decided to do some research. What I found was intriguing. While the majority of search results seeem to be posts by Russ on various bulletin boards touting his bona fides, very few seemed to be in regards to actual work done by him in his ostensible field of expertise. Several results, however, stood out:

• A vapid cheerleading of Case Closed by Gerald Posner, proponent of the lone-assassin theory of the JFK assassination.
  
• An argument disputing the validity of poll results especilly amusing given his reliance on the Washington Post poll maintaining that 63% of the populace is in favor of government surveillance without a court order.
  
• A post in which he derides a former colleague for 'conspiracy theories', and denies accusations by said colleague of gerrymandering content submitted by said colleague, attributing the changes as editing for 'readability' purposes (although he expressly admits 'inadvertently' changing the meaning of the text on occasion, as well as publishing said changes without the original submitter's approval.
  

And just in case you're not convinced by now that Russ is a right-wing shill, here's his defenses of Intelligent Design:

• The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker
  
• Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
  
  Russ Paielli stands exposed as a right-wing astroturfer, and his posts should be weighed accordingly.
  
  And if you are so smart, I recommend you grow up sometime soon.
  
  Excellent parting shot, Russ. Worthy of Brit Hume.
  

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

If we get attacked again, it's just the government solidifying it's position by faking another disaster.

If we don't get attacked again, it has nothing to do with the men and women trying hard to keep it from happening, it's just that the government feels comfortable in their position and there is no need for further selfmade disasters on their part.

Exactly. Your insinuation that this is a catch-22 falls flat in light of the more than ample evidence that the reality of the situation is mutually incompatible with the 'official version of events'.

'the government', composed of millions of people

Specious argument. Not all of the government would need to be involved and complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Or perhaps you're insinuating that my local postman has intimate knowledge of the machinations behind 9/11?

involving every law enforcement, millitary, intelligence, congressional, judicial, etc, etc body

Again, a totally specious argument. Perhaps I should demand answers from my circuit court? Or my DMV? Mabye my meter-reader?

and have managed to keep it a secret for half a decade.

Not especially, since I, and ordinary Joe, managed to hear about it. The reason it's so 'secret' is because it's kept almost entirely out of the press. We haven't had a truly 'free press' in this country for some time. In fact, it is a subject of debate whether or not we've ever had a 'free press'.

Fortunately, it's not necessary to rely on the press to reach conclusions about the events surrounding 9/11. The facts are freely available, and only a moderate application of logic and common sense are required to come to the realization that there is far more to the story than our government is telling us.

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

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.

An intelligent judge

[mikesd81]

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.

Re:An intelligent judge

[suv4x4]

I don't deny that we're in a time where we need some kind of safety net

Shit, the propaganda is working eh...

The very fact you consent we're in a "time where we need some kind of safety net" means brainwashing worked. We're not in any kind of time. I'd say that the amount of terror US gets is disproportionally small to the amount of terror US applies to some countries in the rest of the world.

What we need really is to stop brainwashing, stop propaganda, stop the war and civil right erosion engine, stop snooping and concentrate on far less self-destructing activities.

But I'm a dreamer.

Re:An intelligent judge

[mikesd81]

What I meant by safety net is nothing to do w/ the gov't spying on the citizens. I mean we need heightened security at borders, better ways to stop form frauds like passports and what not. Not spying. Never is spying on the people of your country ever Okay, even if in the name of National Security. And that phrase, "in the of NS", has been used for so many things that it's become even less believable and used more for a free pass card.

Re:An intelligent judge

[Zaphod2016]

Here here! There is no shame is saying that people deserve to be safe, and that there are many valid threats at a federal, state and local level (to be addressed accordingly).

However, I can certainly understand the anger some feel in regards to the "fear mentality". This historically effective strategy has been abused in recent years, and even the dimmest Americans are coming to accept that.

Re:An intelligent judge

[DigiShaman]

I'd say that the amount of terror US gets is disproportionally small to the amount of terror US applies to some countries in the rest of the world.

Site please. I'd say your wrong.

But I'm a dreamer.

Yes, yes you are. An irrational one at that.

I'm sorry if you find this response to be insulting. But the truth must be brought to your attention. Why do you like embarrassing yourself? I'd like to think your smarter than that.

Re:An intelligent judge

[BetaJim]

I'd say that the amount of terror US gets is disproportionally small to the amount of terror US applies to some countries in the rest of the world.

Site please. I'd say your wrong.

Plenty of citations can be had by just looking at Latin America. The history of U.S. involvement in these countries is awful, the fact that the U.S. has tore down democracies in various Latin American countries and replaced their governments with dictators is mind boggling. Isn't the U.S. supposed to support democracy?

Take the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua during the late '60s and early '70s. Somoza was supported by the U.S. with supplies, training for his contra troops, etc. Somoza was a brutal dictator even worse than Noriega (Who the U.S. saw fit to capture by invading Panama so that some control would be retained by the U.S. in that country.)

Then there is also the military aid supplied to El Salvador during the 1980's. Archbishop Oscar Romero sent a letter of plea to president Carter to not send more military aid to El Salvador because the aid would enable the government to continue oppressing the population. Aid was sent and Romero soon assassinated. Why would the U.S. send military aid to a country in such a case?

There are many reasons that different groups and countries hate the U.S., and it isn't because of our "freedom".

Should people seek damages from the phone company?

[ZSpade]

Or the Government that bullied them into handing over the information? Though I imagine the telecom companies are an easier target, so where the money is, so goes the lawyers.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[timmyf2371]

Why should we have our privacy invaded if we aren't doing anything illegal/covert?

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[laughingcoyote]

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.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Zweideutig]

Because you can trust the government, but not the citizens.

Money?

[moofdaddy]

When do I get my check?

Re:Should people seek damages from the phone compa

[jtn]

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.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Zweideutig]

Name: Sheyenne York Age: 18 Home address: 46 Bradford Lane South China, ME 04358 School: Erskine Academy 309 Windsor Road, South China, ME 04358 (207) 445 - 2962 Vehicles: I do not currently own an automobile. Telephone: I use e-mail. My e-mail address is zweideutig@gmail.com

Here's what I did...

[Anonymous Coward]

First after a call to AT&T, where I had a nice 15 minute talk with the customer service representative (she was aware there was something going on and had some canned response for reporters, but didn't understand what the "big deal" (her words) was, until I explained it to her. By the end of the conversation, she agreed that this was pretty scary... or at least pretended to, but she sounded sincere.) who told me that only one other customer had called her to complain (about 2pm).

Second, I'm cancelling my phone service w/AT&T and I will let them know exactly why. I'm switching to an Internet phone. Now, I know that this may not be much safer, especially considering any call INTO a bad phone company would be logged and reported to the NSA. (This is why Qwest customers aren't safe if they call anyone who uses AT&T, for example)... but if enough people cancel in disgust, who knows, maybe they'll get the message.

Third, I'm donating to the EFF. They need our help more than ever. And vice-versa.

Fourth, I'm ready, willing, and able to join any class action lawsuits against these companies. Even if they get thrown out.

Fifth, not an email. Not a letter. But a phone call to my state Senators and Representative.

Also #1: Has anyone put together a unified wiki/forum trying to "reverse-engineer" the NSA's data mining program from published reports + what IT folks & mathematicians think is possible? I bet with enough collaboration and discussion, the net can figure out pretty close to what they're doing with this massive database/total information awareness program (sounds a bit like they're creating associations between clusters of people, much like Amazon does when they profile you to recommend new products... The more info they have, the more they can cross-reference, looking for patterns and comparing with patterns of known profiles (criminals, political enemies, etc.).. I'd be really interested in learning more about what people think this program is and how it might work, from a technological point of view.

Also #2: Merry Fitzmas

Re:Here's what I did...

[lawpoop]

It's fairly easy to figure out what they are doing with the data. With a log of who called whom, when, and for how long, you can build a social network diagram like this. These diagrams tell you at a glance who are the most influential people. In this diagram, 'Ron' and 'Patti' are highly connected people. It's likely they are in a close relationship with each other.

If you wanted to destroy a terrorist network as quickly and cheaply as possible, you simply need to figure out the people at the nexuses of these social networks, and take them out. (In our example above, you would take out Ron and Patti -- they connect the green and red groups) The problem is, this also works for any other type of organizations -- ones that imposed martial law, for example.

Now, for most of the time, these social networks are almost entirely informal, based only on socializing. The thing of it is, they can quickly become the basis for any opposition or resistance movements ( think Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement ). If you wanted to go beyond fighting terrorism and, say, impose martial law and rule as a dictator, taking out rebellious, influential people ahead of time, or even afterwards, would make your life easier.

P.S. There is some kind of calculus that volunteers for congressional reps use for various types of communication. For instance, an email is assumed to represent the thoughts of 5 other constiuents, a phone call, 20, and a paper letter, 50. My numbers are a guess, but IIRC the paper letter carries the most weight as far as representatives surmising constiuent opinion based on feedback. So it would behoove your cause if you also sent a paper letter.

Re:Here's what I did...

[mike_the_kid]

Thats an excellent justification for the use of the technology in question. I understand that the parent has laid out the groundwork, not judged it favorably or infavorably. It does explain why law enforcement is so keen to get their hands on it.

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:

• Policy is relevant in a context that goes beyond the current administration. The current people in charge might or might not have noble intentions, but the next ones can always be worse.
• Some people will abuse whatever resources are at their disposal.

Re:Here's what I did...

[lawpoop]

"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.

Can a friendly legal-type person...

[nugneant]

...tell me A) where and how to sign up, and B) honestly, and not as a partisan / America suxxx troll, what the chances are of the judge and juries voting with their inner moralities, and not being blinded by political "moralities" along the way?

Thanks in advance -
~Nugneant

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Professor_UNIX]

Next day, a SWAT team crashes into your living room, pins you, your wife, your kids, and drag you away for questioning. After all, you were talking to someone who supplied bomb material. Were you with him? What did you two talk about? You've even been seen with him!

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?

Six Degrees of seperation

[zakezuke]

Because of the six degrees of seperation rule. Odds are someone you know is a communist. If you don't know anyone who is a communist odds are you know someone who knows someone who is a communist... etc etc etc. If you are unwilling to divulge the name of any communists, and since obviously by the rule of six degrees of seperation you at least know someone who knows someone who knows someone ect... who is a communist, you must be a communist. QED.

Just replace communist with terrorist and ask your self again why the right to privacy is important. Granted six degrees of seperation is just to illistrate a point, and it may be possible that there is somoene other there who doesn't know anyone who has ever commited a crime, disagreed with the current political climate, or commited a copyright violation. All of which including the sale of counterfeit t-shirts (oklahoma city bombing according to us customs was funded by the sale of counterfeit t-shirts) are signs of being a terrorist apparently.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Jafafa Hots]

if this information is correct, it explains a lot.

I was kinda stupid when I was 18 too.

Read This.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Or are facts and precedent too "paranoid" for you?

Re:Read This.

[TripMaster Monkey]

How does this document fit in with your philosophy, then?

And what about this document?

Yes, there is a big difference, isn't there?

Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[Anonymous Coward]

Among the telecommunications companies, stands only 1 decent company: Qwest.

In a recent news article, the "Los Angeles Times" reports, " USA Today, which disclosed the program this week, reported that Qwest had refused to turn over its phone records because it believed it would be illegal. Qwest urged the NSA to get a court order, but the agency refused, the newspaper reported.

In a statement Friday, the attorney for former Qwest Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio said the government approached the company in the fall of 2001 seeking access to the phone records of Qwest customers, with neither a warrant nor approval from a special court established to handle surveillance matters.

'Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act,' attorney Herbert J. Stern said. "

I encourage everyone to support Qwest by making it their preferred telecommunications provider.

Interestingly, AT&T is one of the companies that eagerly gave the customers' telephone records to the government. AT&T is also affiliated with Yahoo DSL via AT&T's merger with Pacific Bell. No one should be surprised at the connection between AT&T and Yahoo. Yahoo is the company that assisted Beijing in arresting and imprisoning several reporters in China.

I encourage everyone to use Qwest as the preferred telecommunications provider and to use either MSN or Google as the preferred search engine. Use your economic might to defeat tyranny.

Re:Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[kalel666]

From the Qwest privacy policy:

"As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."

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.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[WilliamSChips]

If the citizens choose the government, and you cannot trust the citizens, then you cannot trust the government.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[timmyf2371]

And therein lies the problem; I don't trust the Government - not the US Government, not the UK Government, and not the European Parliment. I'm sure others feel the same way. Furthermore, trust is earned, not deserved. And with the various lies and actions carried out by western Governments in recent times, they have a long way to go before they'll even have a chance of convincing me that they're trustworthy.

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.

Disclaimers

[nbannerman]

Here in the UK, if calls are going to be monitored or recorded, companies must inform you *before* the call starts that it might happen. Even if that particular call isn't recorded, they still have to tell you that it might be.

Five years ago, I worked in the Civil Service and despite being a goverment department, we had to inform our callers that their calls might be recorded.

If I understand things correctly, we could've been sued, had we not had those warnings.

If the UK has rules and regulations about these things, I'm hardly surprised that the US has similar; so who is going to be the first to actually make a case of this?

Martial Law?

[damneinstien]

I have to wonder if Bush can claim martial law like Lincoln did way back during the Civil War. If you remember, Lincoln essentially declared an end to free speech for a while and arrested anyone who was suspected of any sort of dissent. They were held without habeaus corpus. Certainly, Bush has and can claim that we are fighting a war on terrorism and that we need whatever information the NSA/CIA/FBI/DoD need to "protect" us. The US is becoming a really scary place to live in.

Re:Martial Law?

[justins]

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.

You must be pretty young, it never used to be required to cross the Canadian border.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[AAeyers]

But if they were tapping your calls, they would know that you two only talked about how life changed, what you did, you got married, got a job, and whatever. They would already have the evidence that you weren't involved.

Imagine what it saved the telecoms

[Esion Modnar]

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.

Obligatory

[X-rated Ouroboros]

The erosion of civil liberty is a threat to national security.

Thank you, Sheyenne.

[MattC413]

If you did reply seriously, great. I now know that you are 22 years old, not 18.

A search with this info using Peoplefinders.com yields a YORK, SHEYENNE, 22 years of age, with a relative (possibly mother) named YORK, MICHELE, age 53. For only $9.95, anyone here can find out more information about this person or their relatives, including more past addresses (and more specific addresses to confirm the poster's information).

See how privacy works? Once a leak occurs, it quickly becomes a flood.

Damned If You Do

[rumblin'rabbit]

The U.S. legal system is so screwed up that it's now got me feeling sorry for big, evil corporations, no small feat that. I suspect that soon there will be no course of action that any corporation can take without getting sued for large amounts. In this case we have companies caught between the government and the consumer. Not nice.

60 Minutes had a story about Amgen a few months ago. Amgen were carrying out tests for a treatment for a serious disease. They had to halt the tests when side effects starting showing up - drug companies can not afford to take risks these days once they suspect there are problems.

So the patients sued Amgen - for halting the trials! They said the treatments were working.

60 Minutes thought the story was about how greedy and uncaring drug companies are. I thought the real story was about how it's fast becoming impossible to do business in the United States, even with the best of intentions.

Get a grip, people

[SeaDuck79]

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.

Re:Get a grip, people

[hendersj]

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 difference is that you can choose to give up the information they request. I've made a decision to allow these organizations access to certain pieces of information about myself.

I did not elect to give my government my telephone records.

I really fail to see the harm.

There's no harm in not following the rules? Do you really want a government that doesn't feel that the laws put in place are important? That the rule of law isn't important?

Interestingly enough, when the AG of the US was asked why he didn't just work with Congress to change the law, his answer was "because we believe they will refuse to change the laws". There is actually a reason why government is required to abide by the law, and that's to protect the citizenry from government intrusion. Remember that thing called the "bill of rights"? It was intended that the people - not the government - ultimately decide what they want.

When the government refuses to follow its own rules and laws, everone is harmed.

Bill Maher joked on Real Time last night that "Osama Bin Laden needs to find a new reason to hate us - he used to hate us for our freedom." While Maher was joking, he was making a very poignant point: If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win.

The complaint isn't that the government isn't doing enough; it's that the administration is breaking the laws that are in place. They can perfectly well do the exact same thing by following the rules - get a subpoena for the records; get a FISA court to approve the wiretaps. They refuse to do that, and then play the "if you don't let us do this, the terrorists win". NO! If we *DO* let the government do this, the terrorists win!

some hope?

[e**(i pi)-1]

• Domestic spying is costly for telecoms
  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.
• Domestic spying could reveal trading secrets
  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.
• Domestic spying accelerates standard encryption
  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.

An other reason for hope is the existence of organizations like EFF or ACLU.

"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

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[iminplaya]

I do not currently own an automobile.

Then you ARE a terrorist! Your not doing your part to support the war effort.

dont believe the govt stats

[cheekyboy]

go to http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/

Shadow Govt statistics

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[mcc]

Did you read the slashdot summary or are you just hurrying to spam that to every single article that has something to do with phone numbers being tracked, regardless of whether the situation is conceptually or materially similar to the circumstances of the Smith v Maryland case? Actually, never mind circumstances. Let's put aside, for just a moment, all the differences between Smith v Maryland-- in which one single man had his phone pen-registered as a direct part of the investigation of one specific crime-- and the modern situation, of an unnumbered group of people having their records tracked "just in case" over a period of years. I say let's put these differences aside because I am not a lawyer, and thus have no way of knowing exactly whether and in what way Smith V. Maryland qualifies as precident under what seem to be different circumstances (though, of course, neither are you a lawyer, and you have not shown this precedent applies; you're just pasting something you found which is politically convenient).

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.

(a) Prohibitions.-- Except as provided in subsection (b)--
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

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:

A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant.

and co

AT&T Privacy Policy

[midimastah]

After reading over my phone company's privacy policy, http://att.sbc.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=2506#4 it seems that they have violated said policy. According to AT&T, "We must disclose information, when requested, to comply with court orders or subpoenas," but there clearly weren't any court orders involved with them turning the information over to the NSA, according to this article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/38 59829.html.

AT&T says that the data is "Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), http://att.sbc.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=2566, and that "Protecting the privacy of your service and usage records is your right and our duty under federal law," although "our local SBC telephone company may also be required to disclose CPNI for legal and regulatory reasons such as a court order," but again there was clearly no court orders involved according to the article about Qwest's refusal to cooperate.

If they didn't break any laws (which I doubt, but is a possibility) they certainly have broken their promise to their customers. That might be grounds for legal action, false advertising perhaps?

the system

[ReagansUndeadBrain]

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 ...?

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[radtea]

You have a very active imagination there... You know what would really happen? The guys would show up, interview you and maybe ask if you could help them catch the guy.

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:

The case of Maher Arar suggests no such restrictions encumber U.S. efforts. In September 2002, Arar was returning to Canada from Tunisia when he was detained by U.S. immigration authorities while in transit at JFK. He was held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for 12 days and interrogated, he said, by FBI and immigration officials. Then he was put on a small plane, and after a stopover in Washington, flown to Amman, Jordan, where Arar was handed over to Jordanian authorities. He said the Jordanians beat him for hours, and then took him to Syria. His Syrian captors tortured him, beating him on the palms, hips, and lower back with electric cables.

After Arar's release, which caused a storm in Canada but barely raised a whisper in the U.S., Syrian authorities said they had no interest in him, and had interrogated him in a show of goodwill towards the U.S. Arar believed his interrogation was largely related to a casual acquaintance, a terrorism suspect who has also been released from jail in Syria.

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...

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay, let's start with the obvious...

First, we go to USPS and file a change of address form. We need to do this quickly and it probably should span the next three or four months. That should give us bank account information--bank statements and the like. We can then contact the bank and arrange a wire-transfer to a bank account in the Caymans. Hope you weren't saving money for college.

Not Wiretaps

[iliketrash]

"Telecoms Facing $50 Billion Lawsuit for Wiretaps"

The incidents involved are not wiretaps. The demagogues always have their day, but at least on /. let's keep the facts straight.

The Founders would be ashamed

[mclaincausey]

The message of current US policy is that freedom is weak. Freedom cannot withstand a single terrrorist attack.

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.

It is too late...

[gillbates]

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.

Re:It is too late...

[hendersj]

The big deal is that the law says it's not legal for the government to request records like this without a warrant, and that when asked about it, the attorney general said that the reason he didn't go to congress to change the laws was because he didn't think they would. So instead, they ignored the law.

Doesn't a government that doesn't play by its own rules bother you? It sure bothers me.

My Rights cannot be bought or sold!

[rocking horse]

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

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[pinkocommie]

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)

Re:So that's what our privacy is worth

[HeroreV]

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.

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[NateTech]

You had a real, defined, in-the-open, enemy to fight, old man.

Talk about having it easy!

Remember all those guys telling us that. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

The USA PATRIOT Act was a good thing which would not be mis-used. --And that anybody who complained was a left-wing hysterical?

Funny. I don't feel left wing or hysterical. In fact I feel like I was just plain right to complain.

Anyway, giant communications companies have been in bed with the government since forever. During WWII, The postal system, Western Union, the various couriers and all the news outlets, (while they don't proudly say so loudly now), will all admit to having had government spooks directing their efforts, reading whatever they wanted and publishing whatever they felt would benefit the government.

So this current debacle is nothing new. And while it would be satisfying, I suspect that it doesn't matter whether the telcos are successfully sued or not. It's hard not to do as you are told by the Government when you are A) Profit-motivated, and B) Cowardly. --A secret service gun to the head is a great incentive to rat out on your fellow country-men, especially when you are probably built from shoddy moral materials to begin with.

-FL

Re:Seems the wrong reaction

[TripMaster Monkey]

If there's another "terrorist act", and the gubmit uses it to try for more inappropriate powers, shouldn't we view it instead that they're simply incompentent with their current powers?

You're assuming that the Congress will act rationally, instead of being drunk on the potent cocktail of fear and outrage that enabled Cheny to ram Patriot Act I and II through post 9/11.

Dubya & Company, however, have shown themselves to be masters of using terror and misguided patriotism to advance their agenda.

<GODWIN ALERT>

When Hitler wanted more power, but the rest of the government refused to acquiesce, he engineered the Reichstag Fire. After blaming the fire on the 'Communists', and trotting out Marinus van der Lubbe to substantiate the claim, the German Government was all too happy to activate the Enabling Act, giving Hitler the power to pass laws by mere decree.

Now make the following substitutions in the above text:

• Replace 'Hitler' with 'Bush'.
  
• Replace 'Reichstag Fire' with '9/11 attacks'.
  
• Replace 'Communists' with 'Islamic extremists'.
  
• Replace 'Marinus van der Lubbe' with 'Zacharias Moussaoui'.
  
• Replace 'German' with 'American'.
  
• Replace 'Enabling Act' with 'Patriot Act'.
  
• Replace 'power to pass laws by mere decree' with 'authority to do whatever he deems necessary to defend our nation's security'.
  

Hitler's estate ought to sue for plagarism.