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.
I would consider "polititians and criminals" redundant.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
> 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
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
Well, McCain pals around with Errorists - Bush & Cheney.
Table-ized A.I.
Are you kidding? We berate ALL politicians here - why does Obama get a pass?
Because ____________.
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"
One hopes that 'legal ramifications' == 'hanged for treason' but I doubt anyone has the balls.
No, because that was a case of national security to find terrorists.
Hey, I have some great beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
Free Martian Whores!
You probably forgot the crazy political climate it was back in those days. Do what the government tells you to do or you are helping the terrorist. And if it was found out that a terrorist was using your services you are branded unamerican and isolate your largest customer group. If they found a terrorist then they would be hero's. This delusional collective state of mind stared to end around 2005 or so when the Iraq war wasn't showing any fruits for it labor.
There is also the concept that the other side has better lawyers then you and to fight it will be fruitless.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you are saying that they can't do it because it is illegal, you are about 7 years too late. Ever since 2001, nothing is illegal if the executive branch wants it badly enough. They passed the Telecom Immunity act a few months ago. We already knew that they were working outside of the law.
At this point the question isn't "are they tapping?" The question is "how are they implementing the tapping?" A friend of mine in the security business told me that this is how they are doing it. Expensive? hell yeah. Illegal? probably.
I know you were trying to be funny....kinda. But that doesn't mean you should be marked "insightful".
He should be modded "Funny", not "Troll".
I'd mod you "Troll" if I had points right now.
Sounds like a boss I once had the misfortune of working under contract, way back in 2000. He threatened every single person under him, on a daily basis. Every colleague I knew literally wished him dead (we were young, but he behaved really arrogantly). When his mother died, we all cheered behind his back, enjoyed the four days he was absent, yet bemoaned that he didn't die as well.
I know Slashdot has many trolls, and the jokes make some people very sick. But threatening another writer (who has logged in) is a big no-no in my book, unless the writer had been trolling big-time.
I do agree, however, that posts by Anonymous Cowards are fair game.
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"