Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Claims Free Speech Over NSA Wiretapping
xvx writes "Verizon is claiming that they have the right to hand over customer information to the US government under the First Amendment. 'Essentially, the argument is that turning over truthful information to the government is free speech, and the EFF and ACLU can't do anything about it. In fact, Verizon basically argues that the entire lawsuit is a giant SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, and that the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.'"
to mod legal arguments Funny.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Since Free Speech is enshrined directly in the Constitution while Privacy is not (it's an indirect right. See Roe Vs Wade for more info), they could have a good (legally, not morally) argument.
Best Slashdot Co
I can yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... if I'm petitioning the Government (maybe on the subject of what it should do with GWB)?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Can someone please explain to me why corporations have the same constitutional rights as citizens do?
but that argument makes no sense at all
... why is the Bush administration trying to pass a bill allowing for "retroactive immunity for all telecommunications companies"? If there's nothing wrong with what Verizon has done why would the current administration need to cover Verizon's ass with this legislation? Smell's fishy to me ... I wonder if Verizon has done more than the public is aware of?
I think Orwell left out a slogan :
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Spying is Free Speach
This is actually interesting.
I can't say I personally know the legal grounds upon which they as a company do it, or argue this...
But I will say it's an interesting, even if maybe abstract or simply not legally backed, viewpoint.
Granted they seem to just be trying to circumvent people's legitimate want/need for privacy, and that you could say they're kinda hopping on the first amendment bandwagon that everyone is on so often...
But it's interesting to say the least. I'm curious to see where this will actually go. Though if it goes to court "Nowhere fast" would be my best guess.
In the end, the only thing that matters is how much fun you had.
They have a point, but man, that ranks right up there with:
I'm 10 months into a 2 year contract with Verizon. I'm cancelling as soon as possible.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Wow, Handing over privacy-sensitive information to the government is free speech, so they can turn around and claim the information is a state secret? Does that make anyone elses' brain hurt just trying to come up with an argument as to why that seems wrong? Each piece may make sense, but string them together, and the whole seems to me to violate the intent of every piece they're using.
That's the most stupid argument I have heard yet. I have no idea what free speech and invading peoples privacy have to do with each other, besides seeing it will stick to the wall.
I wonder if I can use this as an excuse to drop my wireless contract penalty free. This makes me a little uncomfortable knowing that my private records can be released under 'free speech.' Although if that argument does work then I would assume other carriers could use the same reasoning in the future. Guess I'll have to go back to tin can and string.
The first amendment protects us from government censorship. It's awfully brazen of Verizon to try to stretch that into protection of collusion with government. Especially when the speech in question is not political or even personal.
Verizon might have a tenuous point if they were simply selling the data to another company. Instead, since the only possible government use of Verizon's data is to enable crackdowns, the matter seems to fit better under the fourth or fifth amendments, both of which would arguably prohibit the whole transaction.
Thomas Paine's speech is protected; Benedict Arnold's is not.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
-b.
So giving away customers' data is the right of the first amendment... That would mean companies like TJX whose data was compromised could argue that it wasn't their responsibility to protect the customer's data since it was distributed in free speech fashion as well no... Think about the logics of the argument... Verizon: "We gave the data away because its our first amendment right. We can do as we see fit..." TJX: "We weren't compromised. We gave your personal data away. Its our first amendment right." How many companies will follow this misleading notion. And how many greased-pocket (monkey)judges will side with VZ on this. This country is becoming one big capitalist wild west where privacy means nothing.
Infiltrated dot Net
Verizon was secretly cooperating with questionable investigations, not trying to engage in political discourse. If it were 'free speech' why were making such an effort to hide it?
Anyway, free speech or not, it's evidence of wrongdoing that should be used against them. See what happens when you try to call your W2 'political expression' and don't let anyone see it.
IANAL, this is just common sense.
The first amendment was supposed to protect dissenters from government suppression. Since then it has come to be considered protection from almost anyone who the speaker is speaking against. To use the first amendment for the benefit of the government against the people seems like a parody.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
...there goes my contract with Verizon, good thing it's about to end anyway. Anyone know a good wireless carrier that won't hand out my personal information on a whim that deserves my money?
There is no replacement for displacement.
If Verizon can and should be "exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information" to the government then they can and should also be exercising its First Amendment right to turn over [complete] customer calling information on a public website.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You know it's coming folks. War is peace, freedom is slavery. More and more, companies and people are using phraseology, spurious logic, and blatant redefinition to justify doing evil things.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
First amendment rights trump other laws. Just yesterday I was exercising my rights by posting a torrent of Spiderman 3. Today, I will exercise my rights by making my music collection accessible via Kazaa. Who could object? Verizon's got my back.
Verizon's lawyers are simply perpetuating a common misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Yes, we are free to say what we please. No, we are not free from the consequences of what we say.
In old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the problem is not the speech itself, but the resulting stampede and probable damage to people and property.
Slander is another example. You are free to stand up in public and say all sorts of nasty things about someone, but then they can sue you.
If Verizon wants to claim First Amendment rights, fine. We'll just start a class-action lawsuit.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Companies do not have constitutional rights. Companies are regulated. People have rights. As in "We the People".
--- Location Unknown
I'll say it's quite a stretch to use the 1st amendment, but isn't there also an amendment about the right to unlawful search and siezure? Could I not argue that I have a basic right not to have the government poking into my everyday affairs without cause?
If a corporation wants to turn over records on me to the government without my knowledge or consent, that is free speech.
If I want to tell you all about this number I learned about (here's a hint, the first hex block is "09"), it's a CRIME!
Why does something not seem quite right here?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Companies should not be treated like citizens. Or, if they ARE treated like citizens, they should be just as accountable as citizens. They have the best of both worlds. They have more influence than you (just try getting heard by a congressmen without a lobbyist) over YOUR GOVERNMENT. For crying out loud. These entities are writing our laws AND influencing our legislative elections. Sure they can't vote, but they can sell the government the machines used to tabulate the count.
We need some severe curtailment of corporate rights. Immediately.
If divulging confidential information is free speech now, lets start to leak
;-)
-secret government documents
-our employers' trade secrets
and I'm sure there are a lot more possibilities...
I almost hope they get through with this, just for the funny side effects
C - the footgun of programming languages
... is that everyone assumes that companies have First Amendment rights. Isn't the Constitution (and all subsequent Amendments) intended to protect the rights of the individual citizens? Corporations seem to claim corporate law when it suits them, and constitutional law when they want a little more leeway.
I know companies are supposed to have protections - in fact the must have some protections, but any time a company uses citizenship protections to claim the right to violate a real citizens right to protection from illegal search and seizure, something is wrong. In fact, any time a company is seen as having protections that supersede any individuals, something is very wrong.
This doesn't mean that Verizon should absolutely refuse any and all cooperation with the government - quite the contrary, but they should at least demand due process. That's a responsibility they take when they accept our custom. For my part, any indication they've handed my info over, they'd better have some very specific, rock solid warrants on record. As it is, I'm inclined to drop all their services at earliest opportunity. Too bad, they actually have the best offerings in my area, thought they're a bit on the costly side.
I care less about the legal arguments and merits of the case than I do about what this says about Verizon's respect for customer information confidentiality. I was thinking about swapping because my current carrier has crappy sound quality (but a lot of bars!), and my hearing is bad enough that I'd rather have good quality and dropped calls. Not that your run of the mill we were a monopoly now we're not a monopoly hey we're a monopoly again carrier would do any better with privacy...
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Well, looks like we've been given a free pass.
Who wants to be the first to tap into the phone lines of Verizon execs and lawyers to hand over to the government? A Slashdot is fine, too.
Oh right, we're just citizens. I guess that means this "right" is only really held by Verizon.
Wow! So when the politicians tell the doctors they can't release their medical records, they are violating the doctors' free speech rights?
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Try posting your confidential client information here and see if Verizon considers it freedom of speech. Things like, oh, passwords, code snippets, and so forth. Does the first amendment cover posting client information?
Will Verizon sue me for making this suggestion to their contractors and employees, despite my merely exercising my freedom of speech as provided for under the First Amendment of the Constitution of The united States of America?
Or is the first amendment intended to protect voicing of unpopular opinions, especially political opinions, and not to be used to reveal confidential client information?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And the right to free speech was specifically regarding speech about the government, wasn't it?
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Gosh, think of all the man-hours wasted over the years by prosecutors and beat cops, scraping together enough probable cause for a judge to authorize a wiretap, or subpoena a call record. They should have just asked the phone companies to exercise their First Amendment free speech rights!
Just like companies would have no legal ground whatsoever to issue takedown notices to sites who post the number 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0, right? Because, as we know all companies respect freedom of speech, all the time. Not only just when it benefits them.
Please, please, please Ms. Halvorsen put VZ on your black list.
This is an amazing story. I love Norway. Sticking it to the man, the only way the man can be hurt.
There is nothing unconstitutional about getting people to spy on their neighbors or turn over information as private citizens or companies. They are not part of the government, which means the BoR doesn't apply to them. However, if you could prove that the federal government did some intelligence community equivalent of legally deputizing them, that would be different. Right now, if they've violated any legal thing, it's a statute, not part of the US Constitution.
What this means is we need a constitutional amendment that says, "the United States shall not contract or solicit any individual or organization to perform functions or carry out actions which it is statutorally or constitutionally prohibited from performing."
Since when do corporations get to claim protections from the constitution? Since when do they get first amendment rights?
Does this mean that corporations can start owning firearms and having their own militias, per the 2nd amendment? Does this mean that they can't testify against themselves per the 5th amendment?
Oh I'd very much like to bitch-SLAPP Verizon!!!
This is utter crap and their claims will never hold up.
They're following the old: "The best defense is offense." proverb, that's why they made
this ridiculous statement.
This has really got out of hand....
Ridiculously out of hand!
I believe most of the reactions I'm reading are based on misinformation spread in the pres that the data given amounts to wiretapping. Please read:
Scenario 1: A house down the block from you is known or strongly suspected to be used for drug trafficking. To gather information about the drug trade and investigate individuals the police park an undercover cruiser nearby to write down license tags of those who visit the house. Those tags are then used to identify the individuals and possibly obtain warrants and wiretaps.
With me so far?
Ok, move this scenario to the virtual world.
Scenario 2: The police need a way to identify potential criminals/terrorists. The closest thing they have to monitor traffic is the phone connection history from the phone company. This history is a huge database of call origination end termination identifiers. They analyze this data to identify folks making calls to known or suspected criminals/terrorists. When they thing they have identified a suspicious call they get a warrant and go back to the phone company to identify the caller so they can then apply for wiretaps. They don't have the "content" of the call or a recording of it, simply a record of start and end points.
Like it or not, the police need some way of tracking activity. In the physical world this is by monitoring any activity in public view. In the virtual world this translates to identifying the "path" each communication took on its way from caller to receiver..
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
And we would boycott them too.. if they weren't a state sponsored monopoly..
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
In that case, I suppose it's also protected free speech if a Verizon employee felt like revealing trade secrets.
Any takers? No? I thought not.
As soon as my contract is done with Verizon, they can shove their fucking phone service squarely up their ass.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
This struck me, and reminded me of, the warrant canary that an offsite backup provider I do business with maintains:
... which is in essence what the warrant canary (and items like it) attempt.
... but they both seem to be based on the same argument...
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
In essence, Verizon says that there cannot be a law (or a contract) denying true statements of fact to third (or first) parties
It's a bit in reverse, though, since Verizon is sending information to the government, whereas the warrant canary sends information outwards to customers and the public
...to warn the pope about some poop he's about to slip in, and the pope doesn't hear it, because, well, it's only one hand, or paw rather, but then a tree falls on the bear, killing the bear, and startling the pope, who looks up from the path, and slips on the poop, but the bear was well intentioned because the bear only *had* one hand, or rather paw, to begin with anyway, does the bear thusly enter into the kingdom of heaven?
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
It's a pretty ridiculous argument to make in light of the fact that there are already laws in place to restrict that specific type of information. Further, Verizon isn't a person, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as an entity capable of weilding first amendment rights.
IANAL, but IMHO the Bill of Rights applies to individual citizens, and not to public corporations.
If everyone who disagreed with the position that Verizon has taken on the issue of what constitutes free speech then perhaps they might rethink their position. I propose that on June 1, 2007 we all refrain from using Verizon services.
Let's just go back and ask "the Framers" if they intended the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations in any way.
Here's an old article that listed which companies claim to have said "no" to the NSA and those that said "no comment":
% 2C+but+which/2100-1028_3-6035305.html
http://news.com.com/Some+companies+helped+the+NSA
I don't know how reliable this is, but one may want to consider this when choosing your next communications provider.
need to stop being such fucking sheep and talk with their wallets. If 10,000 clients all of a sudden up and moved to a competitor I'm sure the privacy pirates sure would feel the big fuck you.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
'What Verizon is arguing is that it's okay to break ANY law as long as only "speech" is involved'
In this they are just borrowing a page from our distinguished gentlepersons in the administration, who feel that breaking ANY law is fine if you're working on the whole terrorism problem.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
...It's monitoring *everyone*. The point to the tracking program was to note the originating and dialed numbers for *all* conversations, not merely those between suspects and the rest of the world. Furthermore, the whole argument from the beginning is that FISA provides for getting permission to monitor up to 72 hours from the start of the monitoring process.
FISA is intended to provide *exactly* the flexibility required to enable surveillance responsive to changing conditions (the genesis of the 72-hour provision), while still requiring the judicial review that is part of the fourth amendment's requirement of showing probable cause.
And I agree with other commenters that customer transaction records (be they phone calls, or reporting on who bought what groceries for how much) is by no stretch of the imagination "protected free speech".
I will turn over all medical information I have on Verizon employees who are patients of mine to anyone who asks, in the name of free speech.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I can't believe the number of posts I am seeing that say that they might have a point, or legally they might be correct. The USA has gone nuts. Where did everyone's common sense go?
Constitutions restrict the governments rights to "truthful information" in many ways, for good reasons, since historically governments don't tend to be spotless angels. Quite the opposite, governments can go very wrong and "truthful information" in the hands of not so truthful governments is responsible for the death of millions of people. When it comes to constitutional laws, one should always consider worst case scenarios. Western democracies used to be fairly good at this, but much of the historical achievements seem to melt away in the past decade surprisingly fast and with very little resistance.
of which companies are respecting our rights and which are trashing them?
I'd definintely use it as a guideline for future patronage.
Vote with your dollars folks.
Well, I think that Verizon is incorrectly interpreting "petition to redress grievances" broadly as the "ability to communicate and express whatever is on the corporations mind" to the government. In general, a person or corporation can do this, and may not be penalized by the government for doing so. However, if you have an agreement to keep information private, you can still release the information to the government, but you will be liable for contract damages to your customers.
"privacy is a skill not a right"
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
They are not using what we consider to be the core "free speech" part of the first amendment, but the right to petition the government part.
Since they are not giving the data to the public, but instead to the feds, they are arguing they are covered by this.
In general this part is covered by the right of Americans, for example, to have any legislation they wish introduced to the Congress. You draft a bill and your Representative will introduce it. They won't support it probably, but you will get an H.R. number and can lobby for its passage. (note: they will probably ignore completely frivolous ideas) You also cannot be stopped from telling the government what you think of its ideas (though this does not cover threats). Anyone can also petition the Supreme Court themselves (this is how the right to an attorney in the Gideon case was presented).
I think they are on shaky footing both as a corporation (not a person) and historically. I cannot off the top of my head think of any precedent where a company reported legal activities and private data to the government and then tried to claim it was a petition.
(fyi - IANAL but I was a legislative aide for 5 years so I know the House stuff from experience)
And to respond to the obvious -- yes, Klansmen and Nazis and homophobic wackos are human. Pretending they aren't is the easy way out.
Ok, prove harm.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Nike claimed that they were legally a person, so they could lie in advertising. A corporation as a person is a legal fiction, a construct. So those posters claiming that corporations do not general rights are correct; corporations only have the rights that the courts define.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Yes, and the police should be forced to wear blinders or special computer controlled glasses that erase anyone from view who is not currently committing a crime.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
So no, they do not have a good argument. This is nothing more than a PR attempt to garner some grass roots support for them. They're trying to obscure the fact that they gave away all the information you shared with them that you consider to be private, and now they don't want to be punished for it. Don't fall for it.
Sueing is a marketing tactic that has proven to be quite good at grabbing free press. Verizon is doing what corporations do best, attempting to lessen the amount of customer backlash and protect it's stock price. I give them points for being creative, but this lawsuit would be thrown out of most courts.
"It's a free country!"
(After shoving classmate into dirt.)
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
The 1st amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects people from a variety of government actions. Verizon is not a people. News flash, Verizon: Companies are not protected under the 1st amendment. Especially when their supposed rights are matched up against real people's.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The constitution addresses rights for *people*.
What we need to do is publish the executives and lawyers personal information along with SSNs and credit card numbers publicly, after all, it's the truth and therefore free speech!
While we are at it, why don't we require wiretaps for all of the members of any government or private entities with more than five people working for them? Don't the phone companies have a right to publish that? Isn't their civic duty to report every possible wrong doing, so we can all take action? Congresmen, CEO's and other who have such a large impact should be required to carry cell phones everywhere with the camera and sound recording. Imagine a Congressional Record with transcripts of that! Further, our children should be coached in how to listen and report suspicious activity.
Winston, what are you doing in the corner? You know I don't like it when I can't see you! It makes me feel less safe.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Since the underlying issue has, as I recall anyway, to do with Verizon's contractual obligations to its customers (its privacy statement), their claim here would seem to be that the First Amendment trumps any contravening clause in any private contract. Hence, if their argument is sustained, all non-disclosure agreements -- past, present and future -- will be voided. Whee! All former Microsoft coders are free to publish the innards of Windows!
I've seen a lot of posts which said "Hey! Verizon isn't a person! The Bill of Rights doesn't apply!" This suggests a lack of familiarity with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, heard by the Supreme Court in 1886. The decision didn't say anything about corporations being granted protection by the 14th amendment, but the chief justice was quoted as saying "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Now, if it's not part of the opinion, I'm given to believe, it's not supposed to count, but that didn't stop it from becoming part of future decisions.
(To risk the wrath of our Corporate Overlords. . .)
The first amendment is a right of The People. A lot of the problems that we have stem from lawmakers (conveniently) forgetting that the Bill of Rights are the people's rights and that corporations clearly aren't people and unless there is an amendment to the constitution to change it, corporations do not get those protections.
It think the confusion seems to spring from the fact that campaign contributions and lobbying money mostly comes from corporations. I wonder if a blanket ban of contributions from any source other then individual people would make anything work better...
The best non-car analogy: Claiming the distribution of copyright material is free speech (assuming you are not the copyright holder and have no distribution rights). Verizon has information in their possession, but it is not clear they can do with it as they please without running afoul of some other legal expectation (privacy, contracts, not violating unreasonable search/seizure by being in cahoots).
According to the bill of rights, "These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory." [http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ Bill_of_Rights/]. Thus, the corporate entity Verizon is claiming that it is either a citizen, resident, or visitor if the united states. So, if they somehow manage to get a ruling in their favor does this mean that Verizon will get the right bear arms, protection from unlawful search and seizure (which could be nice for companies interested in protecting their customers), etc...? But, more importantly would that mean that Verizon could claim their employees as dependents for tax purposes :P
When will we wake up and realize that the First Amendment as well as many other legal rights should only apply to PEOPLE and not corporations! Treating corporations on par with people will eventually only serve to make the people slaves to corporations, if it hasn't already happened!
They should see if the ACLU will help them in their case...
Dear Valued Customer:
As Verizon Wireless and its affiliates (the "Verizon Companies") provide services to you, we may each collect certain information that is made available to us solely by virtue of our relationship with you, such as quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location and amount of use of the telecommunications services you purchase. This information and related billing information is known as Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"). The Federal Communications Commission and other regulators require the Verizon Companies to protect your CPNI.
In order to better serve your communications needs and to provide products and services to meet your requirements, we need your permission to share this information among our affiliates, agents, and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries. The protection of your information is important to us, and the Verizon Companies acknowledge that you have a right, and we have a duty, under federal and state law, to protect the confidentiality of your CPNI.
You have a right to keep your CPNI private by "opting out." Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 45 days from the date of this letter, we will assume that you give the Verizon Companies the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies as described above. You may opt out by calling us at 1-800-372-5750 and following the recorded directions. Please make sure you have your CPNI ID and password available. These can be found in the box below:
CPNI ID: XXXXXXXXXX
Password: XXXXXXXXXX
TTY users can opt out by first dialing a telecommunications relay service (TRS) center via 711 in order to contact a TRS Communications Assistant (CA). Then simply ask the CA to dial 1-800-372-5750 and notify us that you wish to opt out.
Please be advised that you can disapprove of the uses of CPNI and deny or withdraw access to CPNI at any time. Your consent will remain valid until we receive your notice withdrawing it. You may withdraw such consent by faxing us at 1-866-745-4661 or emailing us at cpni-notices@verizonwireless.com.
Furthermore, note that opting out will not affect the status of the services you currently have with the Verizon Companies. In addition, we can disclose your CPNI to comply with any laws, your contract, or with a court order or subpoena.
For more information, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions listed below or visit verizonwireless.com/cpni.
Thank you,
Verizon Wireless
Frequently Asked Questions about CPNI OPT-OUT
What is CPNI?
Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) is information created by virtue of the relationship between a carrier and a customer, including the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a customer's telecommunications services purchased (including specific calls a customer makes and receives) and related local and toll billing information. It does not include published information such as one's name, address or telephone number.
Why does Verizon Wireless need my consent?
Verizon Wireless needs to share your CPNI with our affiliates, agents and parent companies in order to better provide to you the full range of the Verizon Companies' communication related products and services. The Federal Communications Commission requires that we obtain your consent to do so.
If I give consent, what can Verizon Wireless do with my information?
With your consent, Verizon Wireless will be able to share your CPNI with our affiliates, agents and parent companies. Sharing such information will enable us to collaborate on how to better serve your telecommunications needs.
Can I change my mind about giving consent?
A customer has the righ
Whether you could convince the court that what you were doing wasn't wiretapping? The laws on wiretapping are pretty clear and there are years of legal precedent that you need a warrant to tap a phone. If the judge believes who you call should be considered part of the call as much as what you talked about they should get smacked down (And it'd open up another avenue of prosecution against the DC Madam for breaking wiretapping laws by releasing all those phone numbers...) If the judge doesn't think the call extends to who you called then they might get away with it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is about handing over call records to the government, not NSA wiretaps.
:(){
That's one of the most interesting misdirection plays I've heard of. There is nothing here about the first amendment. This is about the fourth amendment:
t he_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_
This is about the government showing probable cause and getting a warrant before searching our "persons, houses, papers, and effects."
Besides that, Verizon isn't a person -- corporations have no protection under the US Constitution. Verizon doesn't have a right to free speech.
In the US, companies are generally treated as people under the law ("juristic persons"). This stems from a series of cases from the late 19th century involving the railroads that made it to the US Supreme Court (the most famous being Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886)]). The Court didn't actually rule that corporations were people under the law, but that's how many people understood it, and that's more or less how we've operated ever since. Most legal and constitutional rights are afforded to corporations just as they are to individuals.
This has all sorts of very negative implications with regard to attempting to regulate business. Many people feel that it make the individuals second-class citizens in the eyes of the law -- and there's some really good arguments to that effect. Your "free speech" rights probably end at your employer's door, and if you sue you have to pay for your lawyers while for a company it's a tax-deductible expense (e.g., it's effectively subsidized by the government).
Verizon's blowing proverbial smoke through it's corporate anus here, though. Free speech is a poor argument in this case. First, not all speech is "free speech" and violating the reasonable confidence of a client would not be considered free speech. Factual or not, the information is of a personal nature and the individual would have a reasonable cause to believe it to remain private. It's no more free speech than if a lawyer violated the attorney-client privilege, of a psychologist had done the same.
Further, in Verizon's case, the "speech" consitutes aiding and abetting a criminal act: the government's violation of the 4th ammendment rights of Verizon's customers. While the government was engaged in the criminal activity, they could not have done so without the complicity of the company, who thus became an accessory to the crime.
George Bush famously said "there ought to be limits to free speech," and there are -- this is one such case. You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't spread viscous rumors to torpedo someone's career, you can't talk about magic numbers that can be used to access digital media (OK, that's just stupid), and you can't provide sensitive information to the government that the explicitly requires them to obtain only with a court order after presenting a reasonable cause that an individual might be involved in criminal activity.
But if thats the best their lawyers can come up with...
By the same reasoning a DOS attack is protected speech. It's just some computers exercising their right to communicate freely, ya?
Come on guys, this is what the stop snitchin' movement is all about! Snitches belong in ditches!
They will find themselves the subject of more lawsuits than they can count. If it can be argued that they are within their rights to turn over information to the government for law enforcement purposes, then it can likewise be argued that they are responsible for *not* turning over information that would lead to the arrest of criminals. Imagine where one could go with this:
No matter how this goes, it doesn't look good for Verizon; if they lose, they'll end up paying quite a bit; if they win, they subject themselves to an even greater liability later on.
In many states, including Illinois, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement personnel to record someone's conversation without their consent. I wonder if the State of Illinois has a case against them...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I said "a good (legally, not morally) argument." Saying the argument against the non-enumerated rights is not moral is hardly disparaging those rights.
Best Slashdot Co
This statement speaks volumes about the ethics -- or lack thereof -- of Verizon's upper management. Regardless of the legal validity of their claim, someone who decides that it is okay to share my confidential information because of free speech does not deserve my business. I refuse to pay even a penny of my hard-earned money to Verizon.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Selflessly standing up for our rights in a time when no other corporation would!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Its just more CALEA bullshit. www.askcalea.com EVERY telco switch has a digital tap that can mirror the phone calls to in real time. Well, with in 8 seconds so real time enough. This is just one more step along the road to the United Police States of America.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you're comparing a physical stakeout to a massive historical database of all telephone communications, then in a sense, they do wear blinders. The fact that technology enables them to "monitor activity" on a wider scale doesn't necessarily give them the right to.
If you were comparing the phone database to the police setting up a networked, video surveillance system that covered every part of your city, recognized faces, and wrote the information about who was where when to a database which was analyzed for "suspicious behavior", then you'd be granting them a similar "field of view" to what the call records give them. Would that be OK, as long as they promised to only watch the video of criminals^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists or their associates?
to corporate entities, non-human entities for which human responsibility and recourse is a bit disconnected...
OK I get it, the data leaks aren't leaks at all but a feature of the first admendment....
Anyone want to post the private information that's been leaked to a public forum with their real name attached?
You sould be safe under the first admendment...
Anyone have such information on those who are using this as a corporate defence, to post?
We are constantly reminded that people are people and it does not matter where or who they work for, there can be nuts, as our current persident has proven, idiots, as our current.... etc...
When you release information that can then cause harm to another (want to publicly identify some spys?) then the first admendment can now be used as a defence????
Companies aren't people, and as such do not have the same rights that people have
That is incorrect. In the eyes of the law, corporations are considered to have the same rights as people. Juristic person describes some of this, but I found the documentary The Corporation to be enlightening on the matter.
They have the right to remain silent, too.
A better idea is to provide the utility with a list of suspect numbers and receive notification of change of state in those accounts. Such state changes include received calls, dialed calls, forwarded calls, et cetera.
The point is to provide law enforcement entities with all information relevant to suspects that have received judicial review of probable cause.
If we're going to track things, the least we can do is filter them for relevancy. In this case, my disagreement with Verizon (and AT&T, who has also been entirely too cooperative with this exceptional monitoring) is that they are not filtering the content for relevancy to the actual suspects.
I remain committed to the idea that "they" (government) should required to submit requests to invade "our" privacy for a theoretically disinterested judicial review. Upon receiving that permission, the technical means is available for providing all relevant information to the monitoring law enforcement entities. All I would ask from our service providers is the filtering for relevance to those whose activities have passed the judicial test of probable cause.
I assume that as a commenter on Slashdot, you are aware of the basic technologies involved in this discussion, and therefore are aware that event filtering is technically feasible. (I will provide a resume to you, including the 8 years that I worked at AT&T BL developing SS7 switching infrastructure, if you really need to get into the ability of modern systems to provide basic filtering.)
I see no place in my comment where the concept of "currently committing a crime" appears in the discussion. That statement is a simple red herring and is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is simply judicial review of probable cause, and while there are likely subtleties to the legal arguments, we still have the fourth amendment. Showing probable cause to justify looking into what are otherwise private communications is a central part of it.
First off, shame on Slashdot for reporting that Verizon's delivering call logs to the NSA is anything but data, used to corroborate and mine the substantive assets of NSA wiretapping of our communications grid that has gone on since at least the Nixon administration.
Editors, if you have a problem with the NSA, criticize the NSA, not Verizon. Verizon is delivering *consumer data*, not the contents or verbiage of phone calls. It is not "wiretapping," it is data mining. Data mining is bad enough, but be accurate here because this is important.
Secondly, shame on Verizon for undermining the first and fourth amendments by pitting them in direct opposition to one another. I'm really unhappy with the clever corporate lawyer who came up with this idea, and his brilliant "strategy" will do nothing but undermine at least one if not both of those amendments. What the hell happened to discretion?
After all, there is a big difference between what is LEGAL and what is ETHICAL.
There is no compromise here. Free speech is about EXPRESSION, not CONTENT. You do not have the right to express any CONTENT you wish. In this case, our privacy and right against unreasonable search is protected by law, and the CONTENT protected by those laws may not be EXPRESSED without our permission, in the exact same way that your photo may not be published without your permission.
So the first amendment will now be weakened by the precedent, hamstringing companies about how they may internally use consumer data (or even if they may retain it beyond the billing cycle), or an unjust ruling will weaken the fourth amendment. Way to go Verizon legal team!
I'm betting on the fourth amendment this time. Clever lawyers are killing their own companies. They should consider the stakes before raising such arguments. Discretion is everything in law.
--
Toro
...do companies have first amendment rights? Honestly, I don't know, IANAL, but it seems odd to me that constitutional rights be extended to companies. Additionally, it seems that this argument could be taken to utterly unreasonable extremes too: Wells Fargo: You can't stop us from divulging the financial information of our customers--that would be violating our first amendment rights! Blue Cross: First amendment rights guarantee us the right to distribute confidential medical information! If you ask me, this sounds like a nice steaming pile of bullshit.
If the govn't gets to request them why can't Joe Public have the same access?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
... etc. etc.
A company is not entitled to the rights addressed the Constitution. These are for the protection of The People. Verizion can't vote, isn't part of the militia, can't be drafted into military service,
Why do people immediately assume that a company is the same as an individual? Companies do not retain the rights that individuals do, and that's all there is to it.
The Admin and the Engineer
If you read the comments made in the Senate hearings the real complaints are about the 2nd and 3rd degree hits. They were filtering for who the individual called plus potentially who the person called called. I can see some validity to that argument.
As far as "not filtering the content for relevancy to the actual suspects". By making even the call abstract information protected/private you basically take away one of the primary methods police use to find criminals and detect conspiracies. If you never allow them to see the streets they can't see the patterns in the first place. There would b no way to filer since you have no criteria in many cases. Police do patrol to both prevent and detect crime, but also to learn "normal" patterns. I wasn't spitting out a red herring by noting the "currently committing a crime". Under your philosophy that is practically the only way you could monitor the data. You would have to know an illegal act was currently being committed and that both parties are in on it.
As far as applying technology as a solution, I can foresee eventually trying to use intelligent systems to identify potential criminals but I have seen few in action with an error rate for complex scenarios much better than humans. Even then politicians will make hay and put it out in the press like someone was hand combing the data when we know that even in this case we're talking about database queries and data analysis not listening in on everyones phone sex like certain political factions want to make people think.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
What is comes down to is information ownership. Does a company own the rights to distribute information you give them? Communication of information is "speech", but what rights do the subjects of the information (customers of Verison) have concerning the distribution of said data? Does the company own the data? Can customers revoke the rights of the company to distribute the data under the cause of privacy? And what is to stop a company from distributing that information to an entity other then our loving government?
Power to the Penguin!
posters do.
Public Free Speech Rights != Private Free Speech Requirements.
Corporations are not required to observe rights to freedom of speech, nor are individuals. The 1st amendment says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
How the *fuck* does this apply to corporate sales disclosure? (Phone records are records of sales).
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
First off, shame on Verizon for undermining the first and fourth amendments by pitting them in direct opposition to one another. I'm really unhappy with the clever corporate lawyer who came up with this idea, and his brilliant "strategy" will do nothing but undermine at least one if not both of those amendments. What the hell happened to discretion?
After all, there is a big difference between what is legal and what is ethical.
There is no compromise here. Free speech is about EXPRESSION, not CONTENT. You do not have the right to express any CONTENT you wish. In this case, our privacy and right against unreasonable search is protected by law, and the CONTENT protected by those laws may not be EXPRESSED without permission, in the exact same way that your photo may not be published without your permission.
So either the first amendment will now be weakened by the precedent, hamstringing companies about how they may internally use consumer data (or even if they may retain it beyond the billing cycle), or an unjust ruling will weaken the fourth amendment. Way to go Verizon legal team!
I'm betting on the fourth amendment this time. Clever lawyers are killing their own companies. They should consider the stakes before raising such arguments. Discretion is everything in law.
On a lesser note, shame on Slashdot for reporting that Verizon's delivering call logs to the NSA is anything but data, used to corroborate and mine the substantive assets of NSA wiretapping of our communications grid that has gone on since at least the Nixon administration.
Editors, if you have a problem with the NSA, criticize the NSA for "wiretapping," not Verizon. Verizon is delivering *consumer data*, not the contents or verbiage of phone calls. It is not "wiretapping," it is data mining. Data mining is bad enough, but please be accurate because this is not entertainment news. This is really quite important.
--
Toro
Last week Digg users said it was their free speech right to pass on the private HD DVD key - and Slashdot supported it. When a company starts giving away private information, they are only doing what Digg users insisted is fair.
Just sold all of my Verison stock, will be getting a new cell tonight...
Bye Bye
Sorry dudes, you loose my business for being so willing to give up my information.
I guess I can turn over all of the info I have on them to the government.
Like... how many of the trucks in my area are running Ag diesel and not road diesel
Rage against the phone company....
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
It's an interesting argument that could fly with the current SCOTUS.
The Verizon argument rests on the assumption that they own all of this information solely free and clear of other interested parties. Even if they did it would be a property rights argument, not a Free Speech argument. Property rights are commonly subjected to community interest and standards of no pernicious harm. IANAL but this argument is about as specious as they get. I will not be renewing my contract with Verizon when it comes up.
I am a Verizon Wireless customer. My contract is long since up, and I would like to switch to a cell phone carrier which does not believe it has any right to disclose my phone records to any third party, except the government when specifically requested by subpoena.
But...which carrier would that be? If I remember correctly from the first reports, Qwest was the only phone company which refused to do this. But...well, their wireless coverage is awful, near my current area (San Francisco Bay Area), back home (Iowa, where Qwest is the major phone company!), and elsewhere. While the most private conversation is the one I never have, I don't want to go to the extreme of not being able to make or receive calls. Is there another option? A major carrier which either never disclosed phone records improperly or has stopped doing so?
Corporations aren't people, they don't have any first amendment rights. Nothing to see here, move along.
The Farewell Tour II
In essence, the first amendment is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You know, I do not see anything in the above phrase that says it is OK to break both state, and federal laws. I can not help but think what Jim Cramer thinks of this?
As in another two years and we'll be there?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
I think you mean: "If you want RETROACTIVE protection, you have something to be protected from" to corporations.
In this case it is about extending protections RETROACTIVELY about something you didn't have rights to before. You are missing this key point on purpose. It's not about adding protection; it's about removing the illegality of actions that happened previously. This affects current and on-going court cases and will effectively end them.
No one is asking for retroactive laws in privacy.
I shouldn't have to point this out either, but why should corporations get the same protections as people?
The problem is how these fictitious persons interact with government. They have the financial clout of the aggregate of their employees, but they are under the control of a small subset of those employees. We live in a representative democracy. Politicians are supposed to represent the voters. So it seems to me the simple solution is to just ban all campaign contributions by anyone or anything except registered voters. Corporations can still lobby for politicians' time (arrange meetings to air their grievances) and run political advertisements. But no more donating to campaigns or party war chests. To directly contribute to a representative's election, you should have to be able to vote in that election.
If it was spelled out in the contract, then there is no issue here. ( perhaps bad for business, but nothing more )
If it wasn't then its a breach of contract not a free speech issue, as last i heard verizon is a company offering services, not a governmental body.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In the USA, are corporations entitled to 2nd Amendment rights, too?
FTFA: The government is also fighting hard in court on behalf of the phone companies, filing repeated briefs which claim that "state secrets" trump even the legality of the alleged security programs.
Soviet Russia? Who let you in here?
Seriously, the U.S.A. is starting to look more and more like a totalitarian shithole.
If we keep going the way we've been going, I'm moving to Canada as soon as I graduate from college and renouncing my US citizenship. This country doesn't deserve my contribution to it's economy.
I talked to an attorney friend of mine regarding this. He know the SLAPP statute inside and out, and has never lost a SLAP case. Here's his response:
"Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy "is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker's right to communicate."First, there are privacy laws that even the Federal Government cannot violate. Did you know that inter-departmental government agencies cannot share private information? Second, the first amendment protection for "petitioning activity" ONLY relates to conduct in preparation of and involving "litigation." There was no litigation. Third, there is an exception to "petitioning activity," but only if the communication is related to a "public issue" or a matter of "great public importance." Fourth, there was no "communication" in that there was no "communicative content to the conduct." In other words, Verizon, by handing over information, wasn't "saying" anything. The conduct was "informative" at best, but certainly not "communicative." They handed over information, that's it. What a bunch of sleeze ball fuckers. I hope the Verizon Customers' have decent attorneys, this argument is a fucking joke.
Sadly enough, this is an extension of the credit bureau philosophy. It goes something like this, "I have collected data on and about you. Even though the data regards you, I - as the collector and aggregator - own the data and can do with it as I please." This means that it can be sold, rented, leased, loaned, published, correlated with other data from other vendors of data.
Basically Verzion is stating that "I've collected this data about you, Mr. Verizon Customer, I can sell it or give it to whomever I please and there's not a thing in the world you can do about it." Now considering that these guys are one of only 10 Tier-1 ISP's in the planet, that means they have data on 1/10 or more of the world's population flowing across their networks at any given moment.
Doesn't seeing this give me the warm fuzzy feeling? (That's sarcastic for you dee-de-deeee's).
2 cents,
Queen B.
HDGary secures my bank
Between this and the VOIP / vonage thing, I wouldn't buy a service or product from Verizon even if it was a better deal or product.
Corporate America at its finest.
It's about time people wake up and smell the shit.
US corporations are run by the same assholes who run the US state. These people have no principles and no interest in the welfare of the country, their customers, or anything else but their stock options and their salaries.
They're scum, pure and simple. There aren't five corporate management heads in this world who don't deserve to be drawn and quartered or reduced to serving customers Big Macs at McDonalds.
Stop investing in corporate stocks. Start investing in yourself.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
If they changed the information to hexadecimal and posted it in haiku form would they then be in the clear?
I really don't believe the Founding Fathers envisioned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be applied to a CORPORATION THAT NEVER DIES. I would love to read more about the pros and cons of Incorporation if anyone give me a link. I'm starting to think every person/family that wants any rights at all will need to incorporate.....
Now I'm really annoyed.....
-Aaron
TIME is the Aether...
The Constitution does not "apply" to individuals or corporations. It applies to governments.
The First Amendment limits what Congress can do. It has nothing to do with mediating a contract dispute between Verizon and its customers.
Verizon should be making Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims against the government to protect its customers and its own privacy, not arguing for violating an implicit contract with its customers on the basis of the First Amendment which applies to Congress and not Verizon.
I just called to check on contract ends dates. After I got my info they asked me why I wanted to know.
So, I told them...
And she emphatically said that Verizon Wireless doesn't share any of its records with government agencies without a subpoena.
Yeah, I completely trusted that answer =-)
I suspect the court will sidestep this particular argument, because it's WAY too big for anyone but the Supreme Court to rule on in principle. But the easy "out" for the presiding court is the fact that Verizon never petitioned the government -- they responded to government requests.
There was no political argument that Verizon was trying to bring to the attention of the government that they shared the data with the government to prove, they merely handed over confidential (and legally protected) documents because someone in the government asked for them (with no legal right to do so).
In this case I would imagine the whole argument can easily be avoided entirely due to the order of events.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Suppose I get my video camera, go next door, and shoot my neighbors having sex. Then me posting it on the Internet is somehow covered by "Free Speech"?!? What's even MORE egregious, is that I'm sure these customers were PAYING Verizon for the service. So besides illegal spying, illegal wire-tapping, and illegal personal information theft, you can add a really fucked up violation to the terms of service too, I'm sure. These corporations must be shut down. Seriously.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
i'm sick and tired of corporations claiming they have the same rights guaranteed by the constituion and the friggin supreme court(s) doing & ruling the same. they're a corp. not an individual! like i have really have the same platform to reach ppl like MICROSOFT, NIKE, or AMAZON.COM...
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Ron Paul for President 2008 http://www.infowars.com/
Verizon doesn't have much of a case here, but even if the First Ammendement would allow them to hand over this information, that doesn't mean they SHOULD.
If that defense passes, it'll set a precedent that the Government is gonna regret for a long, long time, starting about a year after the final appeal ends.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Nike tried it once before.
This is the best idea on ./ People should do that publish info on them and say well how do you like it. Much like Bush us crying about "The People" wanting to read his email. Ah but lets make a law where "The People" cannot look at our life but "We the government have the right to know everything about you! Welcome to Nazi America!