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.
No, you can expect President Bush to be fired for ordering the wiretap.
I think you mean politicans and criminals.
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.
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?
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 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'
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?!?!
No, it means that the employees only looked at who called the phone, and who was called from the phone. Basically all of the information listed on Obama's phone bill.
Or does this mean that Verizon does not store that information? And who here believes them?
I don't think anyone here honestly believes that Verizon would store every phone conversation made over their network. It would cost way too much money, and it would be a complete waste of resources.
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!
I know you were trying to be funny....kinda. But that doesn't mean you should be marked "insightful". I'd mod you "Troll" if I had points right now. 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. Maybe give the guy a chance before you call him an outlaw? Jeez....
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
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.
I think you fail to understand the difference. The Imunity wasn't a free pass to say this was a good action. It was saying the government cohorsed you into doing this illegal action, as the government put pressure to do an illegal deed (AKA. Intrapment) they shouldn't need to suffer the legal reprocussions from it.
However if they did it themselfs then it is a different issue.
It is like a uniformed poice man directed traffic to go the wrong way on a one way streen then arrested you for going the wrong way on the street. However if you choose to go the wrong way the next day you are in the wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Are you kidding? We berate ALL politicians here - why does Obama get a pass?
Oh, I forgot - he's for Change. And apparently was born without original sin...
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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!
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.
I think you fail to understand the difference. The Imunity wasn't a free pass to say this was a good action. It was saying the government cohorsed you into doing this illegal action, as the government put pressure to do an illegal deed (AKA. Intrapment) they shouldn't need to suffer the legal reprocussions from it.
First of all, please use a dictionary. Second, it's not like these corporations can be tricked into doing something illegal. They have packs of lawyers roaming their halls who have been dealing with FISA cases for decades. They know the law better than the government does most likely. They knew what they were doing wasn't legal. They did it anyway.
Your traffic analogy is very flawed. Nobody is harmed by traffic being directed the wrong way as long as it is controlled by someone. Happens all the time when there is construction. It's more like a cop asking you to do something that you know is illegal, such as shooting someone. You know it's illegal, no matter what the cop says, and once you've done it, you can't take it back. Why would you do it?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yeah, because if corporations are going to be corrupt, they are going to do it in a way that costs them money.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Snuggles up quite closely to former lobbyists, though:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403922_pf.html
Anyway, the fact that you, thuggishly like so many Obama supporters on the internet, defend the man with threats of some nature; he disagrees with you over Obama, so you think he should be silenced with the Troll tag.
Love of Obama has become a sort of religion for many (not all, but many) Obama supporters. Obama is beyond criticism. Depending on when someone criticized Obama you'd instantly be pelted with candidate-centric mudslinging even if you did not express a preference for any candidate. For example, When criticizing Obama online, I was instantly deluged with attacks on (due to his internet popularity) Ron Paul, then later Hillary Clinton, and then finally McCain and THEN Palin, Palin, Palin. Obviously some politicians are better than others, some much better than others, and yes, Obama is much better than others. But he is both human and a politician, and Obama has been playing the same game as most mainstream politicians so far. No one is above criticism and politicians most of all should be treated skeptically.
But skepticism towards Barack? Unthinkable, for many of his followers.
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
"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?
Always attack never defend has become the new debate style in American politics. This was brought on by news commentators making outrageous claims and forcing the opposition to defend and legitimize the claim.
Cry about it all you want, but instead of attacking people you don't like, try defending the ones you do. You just get pushed around by bad logic, strawmen, and people that really don't care if they lie.