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.'"
... 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
It's a rather fascinating take too. 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!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
If I had a choice about phone companies they may be right. Since there is no viable competition to the RBOC in my area and they are government regulated their argument holds less weight. The fact of the matter is that there is a legal prohibition against the government obtaining this information without a warrant. This argues strongly for the expectation of privacy. So should the government be able to do an end run around a law by going to a company whose very life they control by asking them to "voluntarily" give them the information they (the gov't that is) are forbidden by law to get except with a warrant. Sounds like something from 1984 (the book) to me!
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
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)?
The Verizon argument was that their "speech" was true. So yes, if there really is a fire in the theatre, you should raise the alarm.
Of course, you'll probably be arrested as a terrorist when you do, but that's life.
Nice try, but I don't think so. If this were the case, then copyright, medical privacy laws, laws protecting identity theft, etc. would all be unconstitutional. It just doesn't make sense. They are really grasping for straws.
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!
It is also a tragically pathetic ploy at trying to justify something they KNOW DAMN WELL is wrong, in the service of a growing police state. They are more interested in sucking up to this administration (and their own business interests, since they are in various federal legal battles, federal merger fights, etc.)
If this is the best legal justification they can come of for doing it, they would be much better served by simply turning the tables, refusing to do it, and forcing the federal government to make THEIR case for it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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
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 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.
... 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.
So that would mean you're...disparaging rights not enumerated in the constitution?
I aim to misbehave.
So if it's true that someone wants to kill the President, they should be allowed to sing it from the rooftops with no legal consequences?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If this were the case, then copyright, medical privacy laws, laws protecting identity theft, etc. would all be unconstitutional.
There is a difference between "not in the Constitution" and "contrary to the Constitution" (i.e. unconstitutional).
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
So if it's true that someone wants to kill the President, they should be allowed to sing it from the rooftops with no legal consequences?
Is it actually against the law to do this? It is illegal to threaten to kill him -- but is it actually illegal to want to kill him?
I.e: "I'm going to kill Bush" is obviously a threat. "I wish somebody would kill Bush" doesn't seem like one.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
'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 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?
These people should be dragged into a street by a mob, beaten slowly to death, while having the Declaration of Independence read over, and over again, to their dying ears.
Corporations should be stripped of their status as "persons". This was the natural outcome, and the end result will be a tyranny so ugly, you'll be sorry you were born.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Of course, if you go along that route, and empower a corporation with the rights of the CEO, you would also need to impart onto the CEO the responsibilities of the corporation. Suddenly the CEO's of tobacco companies would be defending themselves in court for negligent homicide, rather than just having shareholders annoyed at the dip in stock price following cash settlements.
I'm willing to bet this is a road most corporate executives don't want to go down.
Good idea, but your ambitions fall short of the mark:
We should be publishing the content of every single Verison R&D server, database, desktop, etc. Trade secrets? Nope, free speech. New products with a "we must be first to market to make this work?" Nope, free speech. Patented, propritary product designs? Nope, free speech.
UTF-8: There and Back Again