Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Employees Fired For Snooping Obama's Record
longhairedgnome writes "The curiosity in President-elect Barack Obama's phone records came with a high price tag for Verizon Wireless employees. According to CNN, the workers who snooped on Obama's phone records have been fired.
'This was some employees' idle curiosity,' a company source told CNN and added 'we now consider this matter closed.'
Justice served? What about legal possibilities?" Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
It's becoming increasingly clear that only celebrities and criminals have the right to privacy.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
No, you can expect President Bush to be fired for ordering the wiretap.
The article says that the employees did not access the "contents of the calls"... wait does that mean that Verizon has stored electronic recordings, or transcripts?!?! of all of Obama's calls?!?!
Or does this mean that Verizon does not store that information? And who here believes them?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
... what ever happened to the information they snooped? If I remember correctly it was just call records and no text message content or anything of the sorts.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
I used to work doing telephone customer service for First USA Bank. In our training class, they actually encouraged us to look up the accounts of random celebrities. My whole class would come up with names and type them in to see if they had an account with us. We'd also frequently show each other particularly bad credit reports that came up on applications.
Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
Do we really need this politicized to have a discussion about the topic at hand? Which is thoughtless employees snooping around where they have access but apparently no ethics or morals. Something not even close to the situation with warrentless wiretapping, and in no way related? Do we really need this, Taco?
No, because that was a case of national security to find terrorists.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Why would it be illegal? Disclosure, yes. But these were VZW employees who were given the ability to look at records as part of their job. VZW's policy though is that they only look at records that they have a reason to - for customer service, billing, etc.
Unless they turned these over to an outside party (media, government, etc) then there's probably nothing illegal happening. Completely different from the wiretaps.
It's amazing though that the employees are still dumb enough to not realize that their actions, even if they don't change anything, can be tracked.
So, you're asserting big companies encourage bad business tactics? That's horrible!
1. Get hired at Verizon.
2. Snoop president to be's call records.
3. ???
4. You're a bad toad. Fired! No profit for YOU!!!
No Nyarlathotep, No Chaos
Know Nyarlathotep, Know Chaos
Apparently it's pretty easy to snoop on a random person's phone records over there. How many employees have snooped on someone less noteworthy -- a friend, a possibly cheating spouse, etc.? Are there policies in place to catch more mundane privacy invasions and fire those people as well, or does it only matter if the person in question is politically relevant?
The employees were fired for violating company policy (ie, without management approval). As company policy is to assist police in warrantless wiretaps, employees who helped with those would not be fired. This kind of thing happens in hospitals, debt collection businesses, and government all the time. It is not really newsworthy unless a pattern of abuse can be demonstrated.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I have generally been an Obama supporter, but was very disappointed that he voted for telecom immunity in the FISA bill last year. Apparently it is ok for corporations as a whole
to snoop on your calls, but not for individual employees to snoop on his. (Note: I am not condoning the action of the employee, it just seems interesting at what level justice applies).
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
The thing is, even if we were living in some parallel universe where Bush wasn't about to leave office, and this kind of thing could happen, it wouldn't be that great a loss for him. In the UK, at lot of politicians who leave their office for whatever reason end up either working on the board of some big company, or making loads of money on the speaking circuit.
They are from the Government, and they are here to help us!
...to which the answer would be no. Refer to the "One rule for us, one rule for them" rule.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
> Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then?
There is a bit of a difference between doing something as a law enforcement action approved from the top vs. some asshole poking around for fun.
Consider also that had the same idiot poked around in a Republican's records this story probably wouldn't have even hit the wires. Hell, the turned that plumber's official records upside down looking to discredit him for daring to question the Messiah and there has been one suspesion (30 days) so far. And he isn't even a public official.
And no Cmdr Taco, the 'warrantless wiretaps' didn't "I mean, they violated our privacy as well." Those were taps on calls with a probable terrorist on one end and at least one end[1] outside the US. So unless YOU were dialing people you probably shouldn't have been your privacy was not violated. We have ALWAYS allowed our intelligence agencies to wiretap and snoop postal mail during wartime, which is what were were in then and still are for that matter.
[1] Some of the calls just passed through US control and both endpoints were in foreign countries.
Democrat delenda est
The people who did this at verizon should not only be fired, they should be facing prosecution. If they had been law enforcement officers, then snooping without a warrant should carry greater penalties: "conspiracy to deprive of a constitutional right under color of authority" is a felony. While we're at it, I'd hand out the same penalty to anyone who violated "joe the plumber's" privacy rights.
Can we expect that justice will be served, and the Ohio government employees who violated Joe the Plumber's privacy be fired, as well?
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
Obama voted for FISA after saying he wouldn't. He and his cronies really don't have any room to complain. Why should Obama be able to snoop on "the people" when "the people" cannot snoop on him? Obama is potentially (being president at all) the most dangerous man in the nation as he is Commander-In Chief and probably the most powerful man in the world.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any military secrets or stuff, of course, but the irony is just rather amusing.
I can't believe that someone would be so stupid as to use their own upass when digging up Obama's phone records. This is not only grounds for termination but I'm certain that if he wanted to Obama could seek criminal charges. Does anyone know if he's planning on going that route?
Obviously these people knew that they would get caught -- so who really did it? If I was their attourney I would be looking for indications of whether a Deny-deny-deny defense could be possible. Although it's likely these people admitted to this invasion of privacy, judging from the article.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
This is a non-event. Any quality employer will have pretty specific policies about accessing business data on a need-to-know only basis.
I used to work doing telephone customer service for First USA Bank. In our training class, they actually encouraged us to look up the accounts of random celebrities. My whole class would come up with names and type them in to see if they had an account with us. We'd also frequently show each other particularly bad credit reports that came up on applications.
It doesn't count with banks. As we have seen in the last couple of months, banks are above the law, above the markets, above economics, and everyone kisses their asses. Whatever the banks and Credit card companies want, they get - they own Congress. There will be no changes in 2009. The Dems are just as corrupt as the Reps - all that goddamn lobbyist money.
You know, someone here on Slashdot once said that we're slaves to the banks ans was modded "Funny". I think now that he was serious and correct.
I hate to say it, but every president does it.
Bark less. Wag more.
ya, this is going to be a fun silent next 4 years. Going to have to hold those views, keep them to yourself.
Or your out!
From a legal perspective, wiretapping to listen to the audio of a call is more more serious than looking at the records. On the other hand, it's also a lot easier to access the records, if you've got permission; wiretaps are something that have to be explicitly set up. (CALEA makes it easier to do the wiretap, but very few employees would have access to that kind of thing, as opposed to the FBI accessing it.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
I wish I could mod that comment up. If it'd been a normal comment, it would've gotten +5 Insightful in no time flat.
I think the question is, do we really need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "not gay marriage"?
No, this should simply be self-evident.
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek
its fair play, to reveal his hypocrisy
if you wiretap someone who respects your privacy, as a matter of public policy, no, you're the asshole, you deserve to be fired
In all fairness, Obama's not that person (the one who respects your privacy.) He voted in favor of the FISA bill w/ Telco immunity last year.
I used to work doing telephone customer service for First USA Bank. In our training class, they actually encouraged us to look up the accounts of random celebrities. My whole class would come up with names and type them in to see if they had an account with us. We'd also frequently show each other particularly bad credit reports that came up on applications.
That's interesting. I believe that's the same bank that opened a credit card account for me without my knowledge, and sent me a collections notice for the annual fee plus late fees 6 months later, totaling hundreds of dollars. I'd never received an offer from them, let alone a card, nor would I accepted the thing had they done so. Oddly enough, making it go away only took about an hour on the phone, which leads me to believe it wasn't the first time they'd done this. Worse, the same thing happened the next year, making the "accident" angle a little tough to believe. I'm guessing those clowns lean on employees to basically make up accounts and forge signatures. Really cute. I regret not contacting the attorney general, because that stuff is outrageously illegal.
So basically, what you were seeing looks to have been the least illegal thing happening there. ;)
Importance of privacy of customer accounts has always been stressed. I heard it on every orientation, despite the fact that I don't have any interactions with customers or their records. In internal security reports I see people fired for looking up unlisted numbers or going through wife's phone logs. So those employees were warned many times. They had to know that all account accesses are logged with their usernames.
Interesting. You, your trainer, and the rest of the members of the training class should have been fired for violating the published company policy.
They only were the government violating the public trust by abusing their ability to access confidential records on private individuals for partisan political reasons. They keep their jobs.
These guys were just with a company that anyone can decide to stop using. They get fired.
So we can take one or both of two things from this based on the case differences:
- Companies are better at ridding themselves of bad people.
- The government workers were Democrats working in a Democrat-run state, trying to help the Democrat presidential candidate, so they get a pass.
Whoa! We've only had 17 presidents?...
...'tis easier to blame than to improve.
But these were VZW employees who were given the ability to look at records as part of their job.
Maybe they shouldn't have that ability? If I was Verizon I would design the system such that the Level 1 CSRs don't see any details about the account until they enter some verification info provided by the customer. They always ask you for your account password or SSN to verify who you are when you call -- so why not design the system such that they don't see anything either until that information is entered?
I can't think of a ligitmate reason that a typical call center person would have for needing to access my account unless I'm on the phone with him. If I'm on the phone I can provide the information needed to unlock the account. If I lose or forget that information then I have to go to a store and show ID to verify whom I am -- this is how it currently works if you forget your account password so it wouldn't be a new policy.
Those with a business need to access accounts of customers they aren't talking to can be provided with that access. Presumably they have been with the company longer and the company has more reasons to trust them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Same thing".
... i.e. all cluster B personality disorders.
Not exactly the same, but are high probability (not all, but many) of being a form of cluster B personality disorder.
celebrities, politicans and criminals
celebrities - Predominately HPD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriate seductiveness, usually beginning in early adulthood.
politicans - Predominately NPD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."
criminals - NPD and ASPD (which is effectively extreme NPD).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspd The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.
Whats also interesting is you can have combinations of these, so a HPD who is also NPD etc. (For example, an ASPD who is also a HPD is very bad news, as they seek to demonstrate (i.e. seek attention) to show they have power over others around them).
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
That doesn't seem fair.
yeah, because obama is the champion of personal freedoms. you people are going to get a wicked eye opening.
Why is this NOT a criminal act? Firing them is hardly a fit punishment. They will simply go and get another job.
Table-ized A.I.
"Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well."
Shut up.
No, you can't "expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired" becase Obama voted for the law that gives them inmunity, remember?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Big companies are not that much smarter than small companies in this respect, because the goal is to keep your class's attention.
Actually getting a training class involved in not zoning out and absorbing 0% of the material is not very difficult, but it is not easy either. Too many years of high school conditioning, I guess. If you have ever had to train a group on a less than facinating subject, it is obvious that at least 30% of the class will never pay attention. That's why teachers have to sell the education at the same time they present the material.
Some do it by indicating there is a test at the end of the class that you must pass. Eventually pressures in the corporation will force higher expectations on the instructor to make their entire class pass the first time. That leads to "this will be on the test" warning announcements, or even putting up the answers while the test is being administered. (There's no budget for re-training the flunkies).
The author of this lesson plan took something boring and made it exciting. Looking up someone's call history to resolve a disputed long distance call == boring. Looking up Anthony Hopkin's call history == exciting!
It doesn't make it right, but why is it less wrong for Joe Nobody than Mr. Celebrity? Eventually people will have to use the live data, so eventually you'll have these issues. At least some monitoring was in place to catch this guy.
I'm at a major financial institution. technically, I have fairly broad access to records that could include payment and credit information, personal information, and even a great deal of info on the places people shop.
It would not only not occur to me to look up someone's records just because they are a celeb etc, but if I had a case involving a recognizable person or business, I would be very careful and keep my inquiries to a minimum. I would expect our security teams to be watching accesses to any number of accounts.
And I wouldn't be whining if in a moment of weakness I went too far. There are some things you just don't do. Someone is watching. Count in it.
I also know a few people who provide services or support to the sort of customer you would consider a person of note. We don't discuss anything of a sensitive nature, though I offer them congratulations when I recognize they did something exceptional for a customer that made our newsletter. If we are working on issues that disclose sensitive data, I just work the issue and keep my comments to myself. And I secure any data I work with temporarily, destroying it when I don't need it any more.
Seems incredibly stupid, on a par with the ID10Ts looking through Britney's medical records not so long ago. I hope these VZW ex-employees find work, but perhaps a stint at McDonalds will give them the proper perspective on privacy. An expensive lesson, and one earned from the sounds of it.
There is no excuse.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Can we now expect that state employees who went searching for dirt on Joe Wurzelbacher in the state of Ohio to be fired. They used state computers to access state records without cause to search for any incriminating information on Joe in order to benefit the Obama campaign. Joe cannot raise your taxes or send troops to battle or sign bills into law, but Obama supporters have worked hard to destroy his life and livelihood.
If you are ordered by the government to commit an act that is legal given a set of circumstances, and they inform you that those circumstances have been met, and you have no way to independently verify whether or not they have been met, only a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT would draw a comparison to snooping carried out on an individual's own whim.
Seriously, did I emphasize that enough? The complete fucking idiot part?
If you need to pull your assmongering little petty partisanship into this, at least make an equal comparison: the illegal and unauthorized access of Joe the Plumber's records. So far, nobody has lost their job over that. One person has been put on suspension without pay, but that's not too big of a deal -- she was already on *payed* leave since Nov. 7 due to her use of her government email to conduct fundraising for Obama.
To be a bit more to the point, I, perhaps wrongfully, expect a little less snippy partisanship from Slashdot -- at least in the submissions.
Again, only a complete fucking idiot would compare this to somebody who was told that the government had a right to order a wiretap. Especially when the government is ALLOWED to issue warrentless wiretaps -- read the law, look under "FISA" -- the Attorney General may order a wiretap if it is deemed an emergency case. He's just gotta tell the FISC court within 72 hours that a wiretap has been placed on someone.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
No, this should simply be self-evident.
Don't forget that it also used to be self-evident that white people can't marry black people, that a man can have multiple wives, and that a man can and should beat his wife to keep her in line.
Society and its mores have, and continue to, evolve.
"Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well."
What does this have to do with the story? Not a damned thing.
I did tech support for Dell and in our training we would look up customers. It turns out we were in a demo training environment with demo customers. I bet you were also in a demo training environment.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
The amorality of the always-wired new generation is appalling to their seniors. Although there may be a case for obnoxious digital copyrights, this "free" attitude pervades classroom cheating and is graduating into professional life. Although thieving business executives are a terrible examples, it is not an excuse. Watch me modded down for saying this!
"
Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then?
"
I believe that's called "an election."
So yes then.
When you screw up in the private sector you get fired.
If you are a state or fedral employee and dig though the private records of a plumber you get paid leave then go back to work after the election.
So far the 21 or so state and federal employees that dug into "Joe" got paid leave and still ahve jobs.
Private Sector = Accountability for Staff
Public Sector = Paid Leave, Paid HR Training, Promotions...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
You mean its not? How else am I supposed to properly train my Harem and keep them in line if I can't beat them?
Silly Americans.
I really think that this is one of those places where the real question is not whether or not we need the ammendment. The question is "What is the harm?"
Who is harmed? How are they harmed? If Adam and Bob get married, how does this, in any way harm, Donna and Eric?
Do they seriously believe that more people will be attracted to same sex coupling if its ok to get married? IS there really some belief that there are people who turn away from the "homosexual lifestyle" simply because it doesn't offer them the ability to get married?
Never frame the discussion where they can weasel out, nail them on specifics and let their foolishness shine.
The simple fact is they are a false coalition. Its a good opposition issue because its something many people can band together and be "against gay marriage" but.... make them support something "civil unions instead" etc and you find there is NO real opposition, you have a bunch of people who don't agree.
So bring the discussion to what divides them. Make it about homosexuals as individuals, make them bring out the beliefs that divide them because when it comes down to it... gay marriage can be opposed by someone who "supports civil unions". The thing to do is to break the coalition between them and the people who say "gays are sinful and should be punished".
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/politics/16blackberry.html
This is why Obama won't be allowed to use normal cells and his beloved Blackberry...
You might have had this experience with any number of banks. Possibly somebody raided your mailbox for personal data, or you were careless about personal info you left online. Anybody who knows enough about you can open a credit card account in your name. A lot of fraud occurs this way. Consumers don't get stuck with the bills (usually!) but it can still cost them in terms of lost time and damaged credit ratings. Banks really ought to tighten up their procedures, but that would mean a lot less income from their (extremely profitable) credit card businesses. More cost effective to just eat the fraudulent charges.
Of course, this is really bad business ethics, as is using private data in training classes. But anybody who's followed the news lately knows about banks and business ethics.
Back to the Clintons.
Who did he save?
Roger Clinton, Jr. - brother of Bill Clinton. After serving a year in federal prison for cocaine possession.
Dan Rostenkowski - United States Representative Democratic Party.
Susan McDougal - partners with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater deal.
Henry Cisneros - Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000.
Mel Reynolds - Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives.
Bill was corrupt.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
As far as is known, they have only listened on some international calls. With the vast majority of Americans never calling into the suspicious hot-spots, their privacy was never threatened. But very little is known — one side wants things to be kept secret, understandably, and the other does not care to separate known facts from the darkest what-if-suspicions...
Who should be demanding justice, is Joe the Plumber whose records (and not just the measly phone-calls, but serious things) were improperly accessed as a result of his sudden fame. Even if one buys the bureaucrat's line, that the searches were justified by the "what if he owes child support?" considerations, there is absolutely no justification for sharing the dirt with newspapers.
(While searching for the links, I found the following gem: "He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he's not a plumber." Wow... I must not be a software engineer, and Picasso must not have been an artist... Absolutely not...)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So you are comparing wiretaps that endeavor to catch terrorists
YOU are the terrorist. I AM the terrorist. If you're not part of the Federal Government, or make over a million dollars a year, as far as they're concerned you're a terrorist.
You think a Senator has to take his shoes off to fly?
Free Martian Whores!
I have generally been an Obama supporter, but was very disappointed that he voted for telecom immunity in the FISA bill last year.
Then you should be gratified to know that Obama actually voted to strip telecom immunity from the bill - in three different ways (none of which passed, sadly). The claim that Obama voted to include immunity in the bill is false, and needs to be discredited.
Nah, but my post is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. :)
Bark less. Wag more.
If they legalize gay marriage, then I want polygamy legalized so I can marry all my girlfriends.
It is indeed a slippery slope.
Free Martian Whores!
Who is harmed? How are they harmed? If Adam and Bob get married, how does this, in any way harm, Donna and Eric?
Well clearly Candice is the one that was harmed, and you didn't even mention her. I think that her and Donna had an illicit affair, Eric found out, and killed her with the Candlestick in the Library.
I was wondering if someone could work a car reference in here...does this count?
Another question would be.."What good would it do?"
Some people may not see it as harmful so much as useless, and not needed. That it might open up more legal issues...etc. What good would it do to help society at large to pass and legalize it?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You think a Senator has to take his shoes off to fly?
Given that Senator Kennedy had a pretty tough time getting off the no fly list, I'm going to suspect that the answer is "yes". At least if they're not flying a public jet.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
> gay marriage can be opposed by someone who "supports civil unions".
California has civil unions - approved by the same voters who voted down gay marriage twice.
That shoots a rather large hole in your theory.
So now you have to ask yourself - if gays have the same "legal rights" with civil unions, why the huge push for marriage? What's the difference? And if the voters are willing to accept "civil unions", they obviously don't care about "punishing sinners". So why won't they go for marriage? If it were just simple-minded religious hatred as you paint it, then they would have thrown out civil unions as well.
There's a lot more to this than what you're seeing.
I think it's clear that Obama is doing the best he can to not be a criminal, excluding lobbyists from his administration for example
Obama the One, the Messiah whom we can never criticize (how absurd), has had lobbyists working for him and he took millions from lobbyists during the election, including over $7 million from TV/Movies/Music, and you know they will be expecting tougher IP laws for their bucks. Had Obama kept his pledge to take public funds as he promised McCain, there would have been a hell of a lot less lobbyist money in the campaign, and the election might have been closer. So it's fair to say that lobbyists had a significant impact on Obama getting into the White House.
So now he's Mr. Clean? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'd prefer to hear him reject lobbyist money for the 2012 election cycle, and ban his staffers from talking to lobbyists, not the token, meaningless ban on employing them in his administration.
This whole "Obama is above criticism" meme is fucking scary in a constitutional democratic republic.
And your open admission that you would abuse your mod points to punish someone for having the temerity to do so makes me hope you never get any.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The phone companies are very large, have huge numbers of customers and so have a huge number of customer service employees in call centers.
Out of the thousands, you'll get a few who can't resist the temptation. It happens every so often, it just usually doesn't make the news. I imagine that most of them are newbies who haven't seen coworkers fired for it.
I worked for one of the US phone companies for a while in Yellow Pages publishing. Even though my group had nothing to do with phone service, every year they made us review the company policies on it and sign a form acknowledging them. And every year, we'd hear some story about how people were fired for violating them.
Short answer. No. Dubya's AT&T Wireless (pre-cingular) phone didn't cause anyone to get fired, cause I know someone who looked up the account once and didn't get fired for that. No he quit a few months later instead. Also the outsourced company's branch that the employee belonged to no longer exists, so good luck finding out whodunnit.
He voted in favor of the FISA bill w/ Telco immunity last year.
He worked pretty hard against it and voted "Yea" apologetically, explaining that he thought that bill was the lesser of the evils on our menu, at that moment.
Privacy rights advocates didn't send other Senators enough verbose facsimile petitions and we didn't hold enough traffic-stopping protests to say we worked as hard against telecomm immunity as Senator Obama did. At least, with him in the White House, we can hope that he will sign the bill that repeals telecomm immunity, as soon as the Congress gets it to his desk.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
I'm not employed by Verizon or NSA, but I did TiVo many of the Senate interviews of Alberto Gonzales on this matter, and based on what little data Senators Specter and Leahy were able to pry from that weasel, it seems that if any Verizon employee participated in any way on a wiretap, it would be little more than flipping a switch. Also, I'm not sure that Verizon should have any role in ascertaining the difference between a legitimate wiretap request and a warrantless one. Landlines work on two wires, and cell phone signals are not encrypted. If this is so complex for the NSA that they need Verizon's assistance to tap a call, we have lost at espionage.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
No offense moron, but there was nothing wrong with the wiretap. If the government wants to keep our country secure by keeping track of people through their phones, they should be allowed to do that. And on a side note, Obama probably DOES pal around with terrorists, I mean, just look at him.
"Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well."
The employees were fired because they didn't have the authority nor permission to snoop Obama's records. Not only is a wiretap a different action, those employees were instructed to do the wiretaps...
Do you normally fire employees for following policy and instruction!? Your logic is diluted by your hate for Bush. Are you going to be just as angry when the wiretaps continue under Obama?
Obama voted for cloture on immunity, and voted for the final bill with immunity. The provision to strip it from the legislation was only a fig leaf set up by Harry Reid to cover for fools and cowards. But even if you think immunity is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that doesn't change the fact that Obama broke his pledge to support a filibuster to block telecom immunity.
As is usual with people venting, you missed the point entirely. This is called "logical fallacy". When you try to rebut a comment, you actually have to be speaking to the same point, not yelling about something else. And of course, if you reply to this, I am quite sure you will still not remain on topic and will most likely engage in "ad hominem" attacks. Another logical fallacy. Good day. :)
This is one line item in a huge number of costs. What about the bandwidth for actually transfering all the data around (to the appropriate server)?
What about the employee hours to maintain all this equipment?
It actually costs far more than this, but more realistically if the NSA has identified say 1% of the population of the US as high risk,
Then they would be going after about 3 million users per day, which would probably cost a fairly reasonable USD 5K-20K
Come on, if your buddy is getting a year in the slammer for cocaine, and you can get him out, wouldn't you?
"consider this matter closed" In that race millions of dollars have been involved, a lot of political stuff, some recorded communications might be used later. And the guy got just fired and "this matter closed". He should be executed if you ask me.
When I think of a list of truths we consider "self-evident" you're list doesn't come to mind. I do recall something about searches and seizures though.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
It's becoming increasingly clear that only celebrities and criminals have the right to privacy.
obama isnt a celebrity so i guess that make him a........
Actually, my view is a bit more nuanced than that.
Civil Unions, Gay marriage. I don't care, its all the same thing to me. I don't really see the difference. However, the anti-gay marriage crowd is a false coalition precisely because of this absolute stupidity.
Frankly, I think the people who say "Civil Unions not marriage" and the crowds who say "Marriage not civil unions" are equally stupid.
However here in MA it made a big difference. We legalized gay marriage. There was a stink about bringing it to the people. There were attempts to put an a question on the ballot. Thats when it broke down.
It turned out that the "Majority against gay marriage" couldn't agree on what question to put before the people, because they were a false coalition formed by opposition and not pushing positively in any direction.
However, I think the issue does bring up important questions.
Homosexuals want recongized marriage so that their partners can be recogized and recieve benefits... for the same reason that regular straight married couples do. Company insurance plans allow spouses on the plan. Why? Well you could just point to the law, but the reality is, a spouse in medical distress will cause disruption to a persons life, and often affect their ability to work. It simply makes sense to allow them to put spouses on.
Well, all those reasons are the same for gay couples. So domestic partnership became recognized by many companies. Well I look at my girlfriend and realize that I am now in the boat the homosexuals in my state were in.
I mean sure we could get married, but now we have to get married to have ANY recognition of our relationship and the interdependance of our lives? There is no way to grant her the rights to see me in the hospital? No way to get her on my insurance plan so that, should something happen to her, we can have doctors to help her, and hopefully not have them lose an employee because he has to take care of someone who has become gravely ill over something that could have been taken care of?
It seems our systems are designed very narrowly at times.
Still anyway, this is why my advice doesn't change. Its far better to argue about whether or not civil unions are better or specific policy than to make it about gay marriage, to avoid the false coalition caused by peoples semantic idiocy.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This is exactly why issues that involve the protection of minority groups shouldn't go to the people at large. I would wonder how many of the people in question have known a gay couple. How many of them have seen that homosexuals who desire marriage desire it for the same reasons, the same loves and same fears as everyone else.
I have thought how much easier it would be if my GF and I were married so she could get on my health insurance and so she would be taken care of if I die. I can't imagine supporting a society that denied these simple securities to anyone who loved someone enough to want them for their partner to the best that they could possibly provide.
So personally, I would ask those people to provide some evidence that we don't need it, or that its really so useless. Because from what I have seen, I can't support such a view.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You see, the law said all they needed to check for was the papers, they didn't have to validate it, they didn't have to verify it, they didn't have to do anything but apply the order to tap, and the law then said that if they did, they couldn't be prosecuted.
Please provide the .gov URL of the first statute granting telecomms employees that immunity. It's still me, just not bothering to login.