Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records
Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records
This morning, USA Today reported that three telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – provided “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency. Such conduct appears to be illegal and could make the telco firms liable for tens of billions of dollars. Here’s why:
1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.†The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.
2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.†If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,†then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.â€
(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know†they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)
3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.
In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math.
– Peter Swire and Judd Legum
UPDATE: Many of you had questions about this legal analysis. Peter provides the answers here. We’ll continue to address your questions as this story develops.
UPDATE II: Orrin Kerr agrees with our analysis in the New York Times:
Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University, said his reading of the relevant statutes put the phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order.
“This is not a happy day for the general counsels” of the phone companies, he said. “If you have a class action involving 10 million Americans, that’s 10 million times $1,000 — that’s 10 billion.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m seeing phone rates going up in the near future.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pmAnyone want to start a really good class action lawsuit?
May 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pmI’m seeing a way to scare these a$$holes out of our personal lives: LITIGATION!
May 11th, 2006 at 6:35 pmIt seems that the telephone companies were complicit in caving in to the NSA, giving them what they wanted, without first going through the courts. The only exception was QWEST, which actually refused to knuckle under to the demands of the NSA. A laudable move by a major corporation.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:36 pmHow do you even find out if you’re one of the million-odd customers? If we called AT&T, do you think they’d tell us? Not bloody likely!
May 11th, 2006 at 6:36 pmBegala on NSA & Net Neutrality:
Here is the actual quote from CNN:
BEGALA:
That’s a very good point.
And the Democrats are going to have to point out that this is a classic Republican move, not a national security move. Big government is getting into bed with big business. We’re talking about AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. AT&T, by the way, wants to take over the Internet and start charging for access to the Internet, which Internet pioneers desperately oppose.
So, now, if you are running AT&T, and the president of the United States comes to you and says, hey, why don’t I spy, why don’t I snoop through your files there, and you want him to give you permission to control the Internet, that’s a really lousy alliance politically for the Republicans, to be seen as big government in bed with big business.
read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
May 11th, 2006 at 6:39 pmCall the NSA and ask them if they have been spying on you.
j/k
May 11th, 2006 at 6:41 pmThe Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans’ communications.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
May 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pmGREAT!!!! – - Calling all DemDONATING trial lawyers!!! LET’s SUE!!!! Thank you TP, for your efforts to assist terrorists and their symapathizers in achieving better access to modern communication.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pmContact your Telco and tell them what you think of them illegally turning over private information to the NSA without a court order.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pmAhhhhh, I love the smell of a class action lawsuit in the morning.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:42 pmI did call AT&T. They said they couldn’t comment on legal matters or matters of national security.
They did give me the number for Qwest, though.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:43 pmDitto #9 – Trial Lawyers, baby! (That is if all the corrupt and indicted Republicans haven’t retained them already!)
May 11th, 2006 at 6:45 pmIn case of litigation, the justice department will probably weigh in on the side of the phone companies. And we know the republican-appointed judges will be “fair”, right?
May 11th, 2006 at 6:45 pmmighty asswipey tidy,
How does it feel so close to the destruction of your entire party. We aren’t scared of terrorists like you are. Chicken shit republicans. Go live in your bomb shelter.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:45 pmWow, Mighty gives TP a lot of power. I didn’t know this little blog of, what did Mighty say, “30 people”, has so much power. WOW.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pm#9
As we have been saying all along MA, what they are doing is illegal. And how many of the millions of people they are gathering data ( illegally ) on have been arested?
They cannot even use the data gathered illegally in court. Kinda like the terrorist that were tortured can’t be tried. Because it is freekin ILLEGAL!!
what drugs are you taking tomake yourself so delusional?
May 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pm#11
that is *exactly* what i was going to say…
May 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pmMighty,
The chances of being run over by a liberal driving a Hummer, are greater than the chances of getting killed by a terrorist.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pm$$ is the only thing they will understand. Sue the bastards!
May 11th, 2006 at 6:51 pmNice work, TP.
the mighty hermaphrodite belches another pre-programmed bushism… a geyser of morning urine, filtered through the mind of a gnat…
it is good to see somethings never change. reminds me of the fjords of norway.
wow….
May 11th, 2006 at 6:53 pmUnreal…
May 11th, 2006 at 6:53 pmSo many corruption and criminal acts.
How do we as individuals punish these corporations?
Withdrawal as consumers?
Ugh!!!
I’m simply amazed what people will do for money and perceived power?!?
Spudge, do you have the number for the NSA?
Aphrodite, how’s it going? If you think that TP is helping terrorists, then you must have really been mad at John Ashcroft when he announced that they had been listening to Bin Laden’s cell phone calls via satellite! I’m sure Osama dropped his cell phone like a hot potato then! Hmm, I wonder what ever happened to old OBL? I guess that as long as Bush isn’t concerned about OBL’s whereabouts, then I shouldn’t be worried either.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:53 pm#9
You are so right. The president and his administration can do any damned thing they want, and no one can stop them.
While you are at it, why don’t you post your e-mail logon information here. We promise not to do anything illegal or immoral. Why stop there? Tell us the names of your friends and relatives you’ve called over the past year and their phone numbers. Since the administration probably has this information, why not also tell us where they live?
What? You refuse? But I thought you didn’t have anything to hide.
What’s that you say? You don’t trust strangers? And Bush and the good ol’ boys at the NSA are different how?
May 11th, 2006 at 6:54 pmyea, if i was a terrorist i call up AT&T and ask for a directoy of my fellow terrorists! yea, that’s the ticket!
May 11th, 2006 at 6:54 pmThe paranoia of this Admin is staggering.
…Hey, wait.
PARANOIA?
Isn’t that a sign of Cocaine Addiction?
May 11th, 2006 at 7:00 pmHas W been hittin’ the powder again?
Bummer, I’d hate to see AT&T squirm….
May 11th, 2006 at 7:02 pmTaking legal action to defend the Constitution and all Americans’ civil liberties instead of simply carping, whinning, and talking trash frightens you, doesn’t it? But why?
If you aren’t willing to fight for your own civil liberties and Constitutional rights, you might at least be glad that someone is willing to fight for you.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:03 pmI smell a class action klawsuit.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pmas a former verizon customer, I say sign me up!!
#23
Jane,
Let’s not forget Bush himself informing the terrorists of our activities. I got these from Glenn Greenwald’s blog; I just posted the highlights; the complete info can be found here:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-is-bush-helping-terrorists-by.html
George Bush, telling terrorists about how we use “roving wiretaps” to eavesdrop on their calls -Columbus, Ohio – June 9, 2005.
George Bush, in 2004, telling terrorists that we are engaging in notice-less “sneak and peak” searches of their apartments – Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2004
George Bush, alerting terrorists to changes in our techniques for eavesdropping on their cell phone calls – Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 2005
George Bush, alerting terrorists to the fact that we are eavesdropping on their telephone calls – Baltimore, Maryland, July 20, 2005
George Bush, in 2004, telling terrorists that we monitor them by tracing their “money trails” – Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2004
George Bush, telling terrorists how the Government monitors their computer communications and obtains their e-mails – Columbus, Ohio, June 9, 2005
George Bush, detailing the threat priorities of the Homeland Security Department – Columbus, Ohio, July 20, 2005
George Bush, detailing security measures taken against threats to American seaports – Columbus, Ohio, July 20, 2005
Finally, Glenn has a link showing that editors of National Review — before the Times ever breathed a word about the President’s eavesdropping “program” — damaged national security and helped Al Qaeda by telling terrorists that we monitor their phone calls, use roving wiretaps, examine their library records, use “sneak-and-peak” searches of their apartments, and read their e-mails.
Mighty A, please feel free to jump in any time. The floor is yours.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pmWow, I want to sign up for QWEST. I want my business going to a company that really respects the customers right to privacy. Then stands firm. Nice. kudos to QWEST.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:12 pmOutstandint research and post. Two thoughts:
1) Go for Skype or Vonage now and cancel your AT&T service. T-mobile is a nice German company for your cell phone.
2) Oppenheimer initially opposed the H-bomb but then when Ulam came up with a feasible way to make it work, the seductiveness of the technology rendered him powerless–he said we had to proceed because it was “technically sweet”. Here we see the confluence of impressive technological gains (the ability to rapidly access, and analyze the most massive data base ever constructed) with the fruits of network theory (the rigorous underpinning of “the six degrees of Kevin Bacon”) and with the nominal excuse of 9/11 it was far too much for Hayden and the NSA technospooks to resist. We have no ethical checks on this agency run amok, and all the soothing assurances of Kit Bond, John Kyle, or Trent Lott will not make it go away. I am with Cafferty and hope Alren Specter stays healthy and finds a little more fire in that elderly belly.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:12 pmThanks, Glenn, I was just about to leave when I saw your comment – excellent!
‘Night!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:13 pmThe phone companies are compelled by law (CALEA) to allow eavesdropping and access to records by law enforcement.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:15 pm“In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math.”
Actually, per point #2:
“The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation.”
Per individual violation, not per victim. There are almost certainly multiple violations per person.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:16 pmI hereby retract my “Ditto #9″ – didn’t read the whole thing due to the retardican’s spelling and format errors.
Please forgive me!
I still say the Indicted Republicans might retain all the available lawers in DC.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:16 pmDon’t be suprised folks if there is a back lash by the Right against this back lash from the Left. Every old fart, GOP, dyed in the wool, God fearing, psudeo conservative, will come back with the argument that if you didn’t have anything to hide why should you care if the government tracks your calls. You weren’t using all of your civil liberties any way were you? The boogey men, not in uniform, are still out there.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:17 pmGREAT!!!! – - Calling all DemDONATING trial lawyers!!! LET’s SUE!!!! Thank you TP, for your efforts to assist terrorists and their symapathizers in achieving better access to modern communication.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Ya those terrorists are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo scarey compared to the USSR that we must now become the USSR so that the very scarey terrorists dont get us… I am typing this from under my desk….
May 11th, 2006 at 7:17 pmSorry about that last post … I went a little crazy with the Os… now if I could only edit it…
May 11th, 2006 at 7:18 pmIf I get $1,000 for every phone call I’ve made since Bush started tapping our phones, I’ll be richer than Bill Gates… you know … maybe those tax cuts for the super-rich aren’t such a bad idea after all …
May 11th, 2006 at 7:19 pm#34 The phone companies are compelled by law (CALEA) to allow eavesdropping and access to records by law enforcement.
But isn’t “law enforcement” supposed to go to a judge and get a, oh, what do you call them thingies that the Framers were on about, “warrant”, that’s the word I was looking for, one of them that warrant thingies? Whew, it’s been so long since I heard they were still using those things that I almost forgot what they were called.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:20 pmObsidian Wings has a great breakdown of the discussions that led Qwest to deny the NSA:
The only major telecom company that refused to participate was Qwest:
“According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest’s CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA’s assertion that Qwest didn’t need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers’ information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial. (…)
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events.”
If only AT&T had me in mind when they caved. Does someone have pictures of them doing Karl Rove or something?
May 11th, 2006 at 7:22 pm#41, Obsessed,
With my tens of thousands, I could help stimulate the Economy by buying a 50″ plasma!
See? Spying is actually good for the economy!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:23 pmUnreal…
So many corruption and criminal acts.
How do we as individuals punish these corporations?
Withdrawal as consumers?
Ugh!!!
I’m simply amazed what people will do for money and perceived power?!?
Comment by napu
Hey we are consumers arent we? We got the power of the dollar!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:23 pmAll we have to do is …
1) Stop watching TV
2) Stop shoping at most big stores
3) Stop using any PC/Phone
4) Stop driving cars
5) Stop eating at most resturuants
6) Stop using electricity
7) … nevermind … they got us by the balls. Let the lawyers loose on em I guess…
Ahem. Section 2703c only applies to electronic communication service or remote computer service. This does not include phone calls, which are defined as wire communication. Section 2510 defines them as:
Wire communication, defined as:
Think Progress strikes out. Again.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:24 pmWith respect to your caveat in point number two (”The phone companies might say they didn’t “know†they were violating the law.”): the “state of mind” refers not to whether the defendant knew he was breaking the law (ignorance of the law is no defense), but rather to whether the defendant knew he was committing the act. I.e., did the telcoms know they were turning over phone call info (as opposed to accidentally releasing it, e.g., through an insecure website). So the telcoms have no defense to that point.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:26 pmAnybody know a reputable attorney, well versed in FCC law?
I smell class action lawsuit…
May 11th, 2006 at 7:27 pmI never thought the day would come that the government would get me so angry that I wanted to fly to DC and kick someone’s ass.
I’m a rather calm guy.
If I could get from Michael Hayden up to Bushie in a ring …
May 11th, 2006 at 7:30 pmThe Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T in January for this exact offense of handing data to the NSA. The EFF’s lawsuit provided room for a AT&T whistleblower to come forward, which in turn gave this story much more press (including, I’d argue, this USAToday article, even though USAToday only briefly mentioned the EFF).
The EFF has been fighting these battles for years, fighting against the government’s wanting to know *everyone you communicate with, in any electronic format.* In other cases the EFF has fought the gov’t wanting to track every email communication connection, or the gov’t wanting to ban strong encryption in software. i.e. the gov’t wanting to ban electronic envelopes for your electronic letters.
The EFF also fights corporations, as the AT&T case proves. In other cases they’ve fought companies who illegally want to unmask anonymous or pseudonymous writers. The EFF’s position is that corporations have to prove that someone’s writing is illegal before the corporation can find out who the writer was.
Because I know EFF people personally, I know how the work they do seems like its from a much larger organization. But they’re not that large except in their accomplishments, and they need donations. If you like their work, including all their work which has protected free speech in blogging, consider donating.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:33 pmThink of the benefits. The fines leveed against the telCos could reduce to[he national debt by more than a fifth. Note to self: don’t invest in TelCos until this is resolved.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:33 pmIt’s not about us folks, it’s about them. They being the Christian, baby boomers and what’s left of the WWII generation, Rush Limbaugh, supporters of the Viet-Nam war crowd. They, IE: IRI, hate the filthy Left and don’t give a Rat’s Ass about Gays & Dope Smokin Hippies who wan’t to have abortions and anal sex. That is the cold reality and they will stand beside their man to the end. This is not like winning the Lottery it’s like the prize at the bottom of a $5.00 box of cereal. Red State.com has already made posts how Jimmy Carter was the Worst President ever so don’t expect them to roll over and say OH, My Goodness, You’re sooo right the President is a Tyranical Dictator and the GOP is the party of bribes and Constitutional abrogation.The achilles heel is Alberto Gonzales and John Woo. Federalist 51 , learn it and preach it.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:34 pmThere is a simpler solution than going to court and, I might add, quicker. Altho, I do think that’s a terrific idea. But, first……..Pick up the phone tomorrow and call your stock broker. SELL your stock in these companies. I’m sure there are thousands of people out there who have AT&T, Verizon or BellSouth in their portfolios. Dump it – all of it. Go online and get rid of it. You don’t think that people aren’t doing this already? Yours will be worth less next week than right now. It’s very difficult to penalize some companies for their actions, but this is a ‘no-brainer’. These companies are very vulnerable.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:35 pmIt will be interesting to see how much increased business Qwest receives from this.
Good on ya, Qwest!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:36 pmJohn Yoo, not woo. Sorry just washed my keyboard and can’t do a thing with it.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:36 pmThe only exception was QWEST, which actually refused to knuckle under to the demands of the NSA. A laudable move by a major corporation.
This is about the only good move Quest has made in the last 6 years. :-)
May 11th, 2006 at 7:36 pmI’m seeing phone rates going up in the near future.
Comment by Krazny — May 11, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
dsl service too, i’d bet…
May 11th, 2006 at 7:38 pmThe pukes crow that there has not been a terrist attack in 5 years. So, pray tell me, what does that prove? It dont prove that the Bushco eavesdropping plans are working. It means nothing.
Now, someone please ask Bushco how many terrist they have caught by eavesdropping. They have not caught one damn terrist, either here in the US, or overseas, through these methods.
Now, I checked, by telephone, with a good friend of mine who is a special agent with one of the telephone companies involved. I wanted to know if they were crosschecking the numbers that show up on your bill. My source tells me they are mining that information as well.
What this means is that if 415-555-5555 shows up on your bill as a call they have requested the subscriber to that phone number. So they get the name and address of the person whom you called.
I will bet you dollars to donuts that Bushco will deny that this is occuring, but please folks, just use common sense. What good would a list of your calls do without the name and address of the person you called? No good whatsoever.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:40 pm9/11 did change everything. Instead of asking questions and demanding answers, the American people have become as much a bunch of stooges for corporate conglomerates and the new world order as the “leadership” of this nation on all levels. Corporate predators are around because the people want it that way and are more than happy to vote against their own interests and not question those in authority when it is their right. The national association of manufacturers was the begining, but we now have CEO summits that call the shots on how America is to be driven. No tough questions will ever be asked by the corporate owned media.
My take on the first amendment:
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.
What part of this still exists since the creation of free speech zones, a corporate owned press, and being tagged as a hater of America for asking for answers from those who are supposed to represent the people?
Freedom of $peech
Freedom of the Pre$$
Freedom of A$$embly
Petition government for redre$$ of grievances
They are all gone.
Americans are giving up the most prized possession any people anywhere could ever have had.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pmCongratulations to the people of the last 30 years. In giving the government all powers for safety, we have made it possible to loose both our liberty and safety.
No case can go forward because the evidence is secret. If in 5 years it gets to the Supreme Court they will of course find for the telcos/government.
Next case.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pmFrom tpmmuckraker this quote from Gonzales’ hearings.
Obviously the AG was evasive, misleading and LYING!:
On April 6, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and in one exchange, Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) tried to nail him down:
NADLER: Number two, can you assure us that there is no warrantless surveillance of calls between two Americans within the United States?
GONZALES: That is not what the president has authorized.
NADLER: Can you assure us that it’s not being done?
GONZALES: As I indicated in response to an earlier question, no technology is perfect.
NADLER: OK.
GONZALES: We do have minimization procedures in place…
NADLER: But you’re not doing that deliberately?
GONZALES: That is correct.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pm#
GREAT!!!! – - Calling all DemDONATING trial lawyers!!! LET’s SUE!!!! Thank you TP, for your efforts to assist terrorists and their symapathizers in achieving better access to modern communication.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — May 11, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
Your a DIPSTICK IRI, you have no idea what the hell your talking about as usual.
Menwith Hill Station, UK
( 54.0162 N; 1.6826 W )
Menwith Hill in the UK is the principal NATO theater ground segment node for high altitude signals intelligence satellites. The facility, jointly operated with the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), is now capable of carrying out two million intercepts per hour.
Menwith Hill Station was established in 1956 by the US Army Security Agency (ASA). Menwith Hill was operated by ASA from 1958 until its turnover to NSA in June 1966. The Army 713th MI Group remains the Executive Agent for the NSA Menwith Hill field site, which was awarded the NSA’s “Station of the Year” prize for 1991 after its role in the Gulf War. The Air Intelligence Agency 451st Intelligence Squadron (451 IS) as an integral part of Menwith Hill Station (MHS). Inside the closely-guarded 560 acre base are two large operations blocks and many satellite tracking dishes and domes. Initial operations focused on monitoring international cable and microwave communications passing through Britain. In the early 1960s Menwith Hill was one of the first sites in the world to receive sophisticated early IBM computers, with which NSA automated the labor-intensive watch-list scrutiny of intercepted but unenciphered telex messages. Since then, Menwith Hill has sifted the international messages, telegrams, and telephone calls of citizens, corporations or governments to select information of political, military or economic value.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:43 pm~~~~ See Mighty BlowHard Wacko, Their is no reason to do what BUSH is doing, HE IS CREATING A POLITICAL POLICE FORCE.
And that Sheeaht aint gonna happen. Maybe where you come from, capitalist commie world, thats OK, WE DONT PLAY THAT CRAP.
Now take your KHAZAR PHALLIC EDOMITE WORSHIPING ASS BACK TO Mongolia, you Christian Blood Sucker.
NSA Again Violates the Law
By Kate Martin
Director, Center for National Security Studies
(excerpts)
It is illegal for the NSA to obtain records of phone numbers from the telephone companies unless the FISA court authorized it. The Stored Communications Act prohibits the telephone companies from disclosing such information to the government unless they receive a subpoena or a court order for the records. 18 U.S.C. 2702(c), 2703 (c).
If the NSA used a pen register or trap and trace device in real time, it was required to obtain an order from the FISA court, either under the specific pen register provisions, 50 USC 1841 et seq. or under the provisions for electronic surveillance generally, 50 USC 1801 et seq.
If the NSA obtained stored records, rather using a real time pen register, it would have to obtain an order from the FISA court under section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section contained an even lower standard for obtaining information.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pmSELL your stock in these companies.
Comment by BBoop
That Is An Awesome Idea!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pmSELL! SELL! SELL!
Wow – this is so Exciting –
And don’t forget – There is always the ACLU to turn to
May 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pmMAN, I GOTTA START DOING BUSINESS WITH QWEST.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pmDoesn’t matter people, anyway you go the big phone companies still get some of your money because they own all the telephone lines in the country. Even if you go through Qwest or Vonage, they lease the lines from the big telephone companies.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:48 pmSerious question:
Who has standing under the SCA? Can individuals sue? Wow. If so, the class action bar must be pissing in their pants right now. What a gift.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:52 pmI’ve been reading this blog for months and I have a suggestion….why don’t people just ignore mighty aphrodite and her/his ilk? I know it’s difficult…she/he makes us so mad – but, you know we just play into her/his hirsute hand when we respond to her/his bullshit. She/he only comes here to incite people to respond. Ignore this slime bag whose only pleasure is coming to this blog and getting people to respond to the bullshit.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:57 pmmy humble opinion..
Comment by a govt servant
Ever see that game where the mole pops up from a hole and you are supposed to hit it on the head with that padded hammer ….
May 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pm“I’m seeing phone rates going up in the near future.”
Comment by Krazny — May 11, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Well, now see, that’s the cool thing. With people looking for an excuse to abandon those telephone companies over this issue, they’re going to have to keep rates low to keep customers. In other words, they’re going to have to eat it.
Sucks to be them.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pmThis totally makes me sick!!! I almost want to give up using a phone all together now!! But, people here need to ask a more serious question. The NSA knows that the two million or so people that they are spying on probably are not terrorists. What do they really want with all of our personal data? When is this facist regime going to start knocking on peoples doors and hauling them to concentration camps? The police state is now upon us!!!!
May 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pmIt is conceivable that NSA got the administrative subponea from another agency and had the records funneled through that agency (which is a sham).
Actually it’s probably more than conceivable. It probably happened.
But…the party (telcos) that gave the information over would have to reasonably believe the subponea was lawful. It may actually be that the govt offered such subponeas after reaching an agreement with the telcos in order to provide them cover (which is also a sham as it would be after the fact).
They have lawyers who can figure out that the request is likely unlawful and exposes the company to reputation and financial risk.
The NSA, though, has too much leverage with the telcos. If you recall, Qwest (the good guy here amazingly) won a contract that was classified for several hundred million dollars back in the day (00?). Anyway the CEO pumped and dumped and got investigated.
NSA pays these companies to co-operate by giving contracts that probably don’t lead to any real services being performed as specified (ie they get 100 mil but give NSA 1mil in stuff). I always wondered what Qwest was doing with a classified contract.
I’m guessing it was something similar:(
May 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pm[...] Update: the telcos could be liable for many billions in damages. Now, who wants to be the first attorney to form a class for a Class Action? [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 8:00 pmWhat is wrong with data mining certain al Qaeda phone numbers for patterns as to whom they call? I would have thought this is a standard wartime intelligence technique. We ARE at war, y’know . . . Or doesn’t that matter to you “progressive” types!?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:01 pmGood Idea, while we’re at war, we’ll just continue to give up all of our civil liberties!!! It’s not about protecting us from terroists. We need protection from them. America is quickly going down the tubes!!! Something needs to be done, we can’t stand for this administration to walk all over the constitution right in front of us. Terror is the pretext
May 11th, 2006 at 8:04 pmUmmm…BSR, your comment is so out of whack with the issue at hand — the illegal obtaining of tens of millions of telephone records, not just those of “certain al Qaeda phone numbers” — that one suspects you care very little about what this is about, and only care about defending your party and power.
Which is pretty typical of Internet Bush dead-enders, if I do say so.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:06 pmIf polls are conducted this weekend, Bush’s approval rating, one would think, should surely dip below thirty per cent. I think Nixon’s low was 29 per cent. With the outrageous spying done with the approval of this corrupt administration, Bush, in theory, should break Nixon’s rating.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:07 pmBSR,
BushCo. is at war with the constitution! The war with Al Qaeda is fiction. Bush and Al Qaeda enjoy a symbiotic relationship.
t-mac
May 11th, 2006 at 8:08 pm“the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.”
that’s a flawed premise. the data may have been subpoenad by another party then passed to the NSA. perhaps by Mr Gonzalez.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:09 pmWhat is wrong with data mining certain al Qaeda phone numbers for patterns as to whom they call?
Of course, that’s all they’re data mining. Heh. Heh. Heh.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:10 pmRyan,
You’re right. For once. I stand corrected. That doesn’t mean you have to slander me. Your antics are very tiring.
With that said, it still isn’t clear-cut.
2702c is interesting, so is 2701c.
For example, 2702c4 allows for the voluntary disclosure of communications records:
2703 doesn’t even apply, as the government did not require AT&T and the rest to give them the information. They asked the phone companies to give up the information voluntarily, which is why 2702 comes into play.
2701c also provides that the government is not liable here, since:
Thus if the phone companies argue that they believed “that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information” then they are off the hook as well.
Regardless, the NSA didn’t do anything illegal here. The only ones liable here are the phone companies, and it looks like they have a loop-hole they can use to justify their actions.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:12 pm“(iv)”for telemarketing enforcement;”
what the hell is that ? anyone hazard a guess ?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:16 pmRyan,
You’re right. For once. I stand corrected.
Comment by Seixon
You should be commended for admiting to wrong… I am starting to think the trolls are getting cracks… this just wasnt happening in the past… before they would get all frothy at the mouth and just couldnt say the words … “I ……stand …….!@#$%^$#!!!.”
May 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pmBlue StateRed – Remember, politically astute progs view themselves as politically correct intellectually superior “sophisticates”. The PC crowd has run Europe into the ground and they won’t be content until they do the same here.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:19 pm150 million disconnects would send the telcos into a tailspin.
The gov wouldn’t know whether to sh*t or go blind.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:22 pmplease sign me up for any class action law suit. i am livid. i am scared.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:22 pmRyan,
Calling me “stupid”, a “fool”, and a bunch of other things are slanderous. Why can’t you just let it go? Try to have a mature discussion for once. I presented a case that it isn’t clear-cut, now you can either disagree with me and try to rebut my points, or you can shut up. Don’t go around calling me names.
Getting the phone companies to give up phone records is not a violation of civil rights, Ryan. If you think so, then that would mean that everyone who buys phone records, such as telemarketers, are violating civil rights. Sorry, that’s not correct.
I’m not sure the Constitution guarantees Americans the rights to use a telephone service, but you can argue that it does if you want. Apparently the Constitution says all kinds of things in between the lines… ;)
Gerald,
I will always admit when I am wrong, unlike certain others……
May 11th, 2006 at 8:24 pmAnother problem: Share holder lawsuits are going to kill these companies. I wouldn’t be surprised to see congress pass legislation to make their actions retroactively legal. The impact on this is so large and wide.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:28 pmI suggest the following be appended to your sig file on any e-mail sent by you. It’s on all of mine, sans the corporate one, because we’re prohibited from any form of political opinion at work.
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant or notice, and certainly not without probable cause. They may be this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:29 pmRyan,
The government did not legally compel Qwest to help them. Qwest was never taken to court for not following 2703c, namely because the NSA was not legally requiring them to give up the records. As for “blackmail”, the government is not legally bound to provide Qwest with any contracts if they don’t want to, especially classified ones.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:29 pmHow to sue your phone company:
#1) Go to your local district court and file a small claim action for $1000 for “Illegally providing phone records to the NSA” Costs about $30.
#2) The court clerk will stamp your claim and give you a Case Number and a court date.
#3) Serve your phone company by mailing the stamped claim by registered mail. Costs about $5.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:32 pm#4) Attend the court hearing. A lawyer from your phone company MUST show up to defend. If they don’t show up, you will win $1000 by default. If they do defend, you’ll at least get a chance to have your say on the record, and you might win. BUT, either way, just think how much we could cost the phone company if just 10,000 of us did this? The cost of just defending these cases would make the phone company think twice about playing ball with the feds. For an added bonus, send a copy of the claim a week before your court date to the local newspapers and you might even stir up some press.
Doh, that should read:
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant or notice, and certainly not without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
I had incorrectly typed “They may BE this without….” scratch that. Should have been “They may DO this without…”
Sorry for the typo.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAphrodite,
May 11th, 2006 at 8:34 pmIf you’ve got nothin’, just say so.
So, Bush&Co learned the lessons of the past, when they tried to get authority for illegal activity, they were denied by Coomey, and by none other than Ashcroft, so they did it anyway and learned not to ask for permission any more.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:36 pmThey just do as they want, don’t tell, don’t ask.
It’s the NIKE defense: Just do it.
So what about cell companies like T-Mobile?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThe Administration is in clear violation of at least one and perhaps two laws. Here’s my analysis of the NSA fiasco.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:41 pmI am extremely angry over the recent disclosure that Verizon has been sharing personal information with the federal government without any warrant or subpoena issued.
I have been a long time customer of Verizon and now as I approach the end of my two year contract with your company, am beginning to wonder why. Your company doesn’t have the gonads to refuse like Qwest Communications did. You just rolled over? is that it?
Maybe it’s time to take our business elsewhere. I expect an explanation and don’t make it mealy mouthed please.
Sincerely,
Celeste & Michael
p.s. we are wireless and residential customers
May 11th, 2006 at 8:41 pmStart mounting that Class Action suit today!
May 11th, 2006 at 8:42 pmHey, Blue State Red, the “war” we are in is the same as the “war” on drugs. I.e. – not a REAL war, it is RHETORICAL one. Congress never issued a Statement of War. Last time they declared that was during World War 2. So, just shove it. I assume you have nothing at all to hide, huh? You are squeaky clean! Every single phone call you have made over the past 6 years has been recorded, Bubba. Never ever once slipped up? Hmmm?
Think hard. When the government turns into a fascist dictatorship, when will you be the one that’s picked up? Who will speak out for you…. hmmm?
By thinking in those terms, you begin to see that your line of thought is ill-informed. Do you know for sure that none of those “wrong numbers” you’ve been recieving recently aren’t Al Quaeda? What are you hiding, hmmm?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:42 pm:) coming to you on my QWEST DSL line…yay!!!!! This CANNOT go away…
May 11th, 2006 at 8:43 pmRyan,
Take a deep breath. Even if you think I am the dumbest person in the world, you can keep it to yourself. I don’t think I speak only for myself when I say that such name-calling only ruins any productive mood in a debate and gets tempers flaring. Your temper seems to be flaring 24/7, which is unfortunate.
Just as I suspected, you read in between the lines of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t say what you just did here, but I guess you feel compelled to twist the words of the 4th amendment as you please. Here is the 4th amendment:
Would you like to point out to me where it says that phone conversations and phone records logged with a service provider are protected? I don’t see it.
Actually, what you’re doing is generalizing the 4th amendment well beyond what it says to apply to anything you see fit. That’s not how it works. Adults don’t go around calling people names, start acting like one.
It’s not blackmail. The government can decide on certain requirements for all companies that want to apply for contracts, and if the companies do not meet the requirements, they will not be considered for a contract. Is that blackmail? No, it’s not. Blackmail is when you force someone to do something when they are in a position where they have to do it. Qwest doesn’t have to get classified government contracts.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:44 pm#70-”my humble opinion..” – Comment by a govt servant
**** Let me guess – another “hard” working government bureaucrat? SIEU?? I know reading the same tired “progressive” garbage is a way to wile the hours away while you’re on the taxpayers dime…
For the rest of you paranoid progs – why not call on your brothers & sisters in the Communication Union? DemDonating Class Action Attorneys provide a wonderful service – for themselves…
May 11th, 2006 at 8:45 pmI haven’t had the time to read all of the posts, but, if I wrote to the Freedom of Information Folks, I assume they’d have to provide a list of all of those who had been spied on? Over?
May 11th, 2006 at 8:45 pmAphrodite apparently can’t make cogent argument in the slightest. I’ve read better posts on Yahoo.com from Bushies.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:47 pmI’ve already contacted the Mississippi branch of the ACLU. I didn’t know where else to start, but this sounds right up their alley. I’d urge others to contact their state HQ’s.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:49 pmChanging companies now.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:52 pmOn one of these threads, someone pointed out that this information can be shared with FBI, CIA, DEA and any government agency. So, right now, you think you are safe, but will you be safe tomorrow? They have your information, and can review any call you had in the past 5 years.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:52 pmAlso, it has been noted somewhere here that AT&T and Bell own all the switching equipment and other hardware (excuse me for not understanding the technical) so even if you change companies, you will still be doing business indirectly with the same companies involved.
Even Qwest who wisely chose not to submit to pressure and blackmail.
The phone company monopoly was broken twenty years ago, only to have regrouped in recent years, and now are in bed with the govt.
beavercleaver,
Well, since the NSA only got phone numbers, and not names, I’m not sure you’d get very far with a FOIA to get a list of people…
May 11th, 2006 at 8:52 pmignore mighty aphrodite and her/his ilk? I know it’s difficult…she/he makes us so mad – but, you know we just play into her/his hirsute hand when we respond to her/his bullshit. She/he only comes here to incite people to respond. Ignore this slime bag whose only pleasure is coming to this blog and getting people to respond to the bullshit.
my humble opinion..
Comment by a govt servant
Ever see that game where the mole pops up from a hole and you are supposed to hit it on the head with that padded hammer ….
Comment by Gerald Gibson — May 11, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
OMG, the first real laugh I’ve had all day!!!! thanks.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:56 pmIf anyone is considering changing phone service, I would like to suggest Working Assets. They are a company concerned with social and liberal causes and are also publishing Glenn Greenwald’s latest book. Even though they are located in Pa., they are able to provide service for me on the West Coast.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:59 pmThis is wrong, sorry folks.
2701(c) Exceptions.— Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized—
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;
That is, if the phone company authorized the access, it’s not an offense.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:04 pmI agree that you cannot “force” anyone to do anything, they just decide to take the consequence, which could be death.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:09 pmSorry – this is OT, but…
May 11th, 2006 at 9:13 pmSo much for “supporting the troops.”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Army_recruits_allege_injuries_punished_with_0511.html
An Army program for recruits injured in basic training has been charged with physical abuse and medical neglect, according to a report in Friday’s New York Times……..
#116, Marie. My divestiture history is a big foggy, so I can be completely wrong, but back in 1986 when Judge Green ordered the breakup of the ATT system, it included the “lines”. So, in effect, in 2006, the lines are no longer owned by ATT. Pre-divestiture they were “leased lines” and still ATT property and for a while shortly after divestiture this was still true. Not so today.
However, today, ATT is releasing to the NSA captured information from “peering links,” which connect AT&T’s infrastructure to other telecommunications networks, potentially giving the NSA access to information traversing “the whole country, as well as the rest of the world.” So if you’re an ATT customer and accessing something another telecommunications company “owns”, it’s being sent on.
So much for what ATT stood for when they started way back when. Kind of like the USA back in the old days; Customer (citizien) information was private and protected at all costs. I wish every telecom company had a Nacchio at the helm.
Theresa (a former ATT employee – pre and post divestiture)
May 11th, 2006 at 9:14 pm#2 – Please include my name!
May 11th, 2006 at 9:16 pm#99 – This should be done for ALL the companies that disclosed the records. Any calls you made to a customer of any other offending telco, was reported to the government by them.
Even as a Qwest customer, I have been thusly raped numerous times.
I say we coordinate the filings. Swamp the fucking system. This must stop.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:18 pmSorry, my previous post was a response to #91.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:20 pm“That is, if the phone company authorized the access, it’s not an offense. Comment by grytpype”
I suggest you re-read that section. Because the semicolon was used without an OR conjunction, both the authorization of the company and the customer are required before an exception is granted. Legal language is often based on this sort of subtlety, so it’s easy to miss this. The ‘AND’ is implied in these sorts of conditions unless OR is used as was the 3rd condition.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:26 pmRyan,
Olmstead vs. the United States huh. Alright, this was the Court’s opinion:
Sorry, friend, but the Constitution doesn’t cover that. This is why federal laws were passed to govern these types of things, since the Constitution does not cover it.
As for you claiming not to be having a temper in this discussion, why do you keep USING ALL CAPS? Why do you keep using inflammatory language? Sounds like you’re pretty riled up to me.
Just because the Constitution doesn’t guarantee something doesn’t mean other laws don’t, something it seems you have entirely forgotten. If what you said were true, there wouldn’t have been any need for the FISA laws of 1978.
You are quite possibly the most inflammatory person I have ever encountered on the internet. No, it is not blackmail. Qwest was not coerced or extorted into giving up their records. Blackmail is when someone wants you to pay them not to release pictures of you. If you don’t do it, it will cause you harm of some sort. Qwest will not be harmed by not doing as the NSA says. They won’t get classified contracts, but that’s not the same as getting harmed.
Blackmail entails that you will end up harmed in some manner by not doing what someone says. Not receiving a contract is not harming, as it was not something you were entitled to, or something that was yours.
It appears you don’t seem to understand what blackmail entails.
I mean look. If a cell-phone operator comes to me and says “hey, pay us $50 or you won’t get to use our network” is that blackmail? No, it’s not. I haven’t lost anything by saying no. Of course, I won’t gain the ability to use their network, but I am no worse off than I was before I said no. Blackmail entails you being harmed physically or economically as a direct result if you do not do what the person blackmailing you says.
Qwest isn’t harmed by not getting contracts in the future that they had no right to. In fact, the government can require cooperation from companies who want certain types of contracts. Such as with Iraq contracts, companies had to agree to non-disclosure agreements about the contracts for security reasons. Obviously if there was a company that did not follow these rules earlier, they would not be considered.
I’d say that you are projecting onto me the inverse of what you are: paranoid.
Why in the hell would the NSA want to do anything other than what they are supposed to do? We’re talking about a huge agency here. So all the people of the agency are interested in you talking to your friend about your cat? Seriously, I don’t follow the logic.
I’m not saying that it is impossible that the NSA has misused the information, but for you and others to just assume that they are is just abrasive. Why doesn’t this skepticism rule your entire life? The credit card companies, the phone companies, the IRS, every company that has information about you… couldn’t they misuse your information as well? Yes, they could. So why don’t you scream out allegations about all of them like you are at the NSA?
Oh, I know why, because Bush is president. That is the only reason. Do you know what the Echelon Project was? Clinton and the NSA were conducting surveillance of all kinds of stuff. Did you care then? Probably not – Clinton was president.
And you know what, I could care less if the government wants to listen to me talking to my friend about cars or some other garbage. If they really want to waste their time, then that’s just sad. I don’t see why they would, so therefore I assume that they aren’t wasting their time doing such moronic things.
Of course, you and others are obsessed with making Americans feel like their every move is being watched by Bush so that you can scare them into voting for Democrats in November. I find that a bit disingenuous and pathetic to be quite honest. You are overblowing everything, assuming the worst about anything that might involve Bush, even all the Americans who are working at the NSA to protect us from terrorism.
You don’t care. All you care about is getting Democrats into power, and you’ll do just about anything to get there. I find that disgusting.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:33 pmSounds like a great class action lawsuit case. Sign me up!!!
So, Bush and his admnistration lied to us (U.S.) again. They said they were only spying on telephone calls where at least one end was overseas and possibly connected to al Qaeda. Apparently, they were spying on hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens in some huge, secret data-mining operation…which would put even Richard Nixon to shame. Of course, Nixon would have pulled the same stunt if he’d had the computing power at hand that is available into today’s modern computer age.
And Bush once again claims that everything he’s done, as far as surreptitious surveillance on U.S. citizens, is only done after court approval. Liar. And the “appropriate” people in Congress have been notified of their illegal surveillance program, according to Hayden. Of course, we believe that. Especially after we just learned that the list of who’s “appropriate” in Congress is even classified so no one will discover exactly who the congressional culprits are who signed off on this illegal surveillance program…and kept it secret even from other members of OUR Congress.
The Republicanoids cannot be trusted. And what is a Republicanoid? It’s a cross between a Republican and hemorrhoids. Ouch.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:33 pm[...] all gonna be rich! Permalink| [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 9:34 pmThis isn’t about the communications. It’s about the communications records. That’s why it’s section 2703 that applies.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:34 pmHave a look at this. This is hysterical. www,totalitarianrepublic.com
May 11th, 2006 at 9:37 pmRyan,
Wrong. Do I need to go through a grammar lesson? Here’s two sentences:
1. A, B, or C.
2. A, B, and C.
What do these two sentences mean? You seem to think that they mean:
1. A and B or C.
2. A and B and C.
Wrong. They mean:
1. A or B or C.
2. A and B and C.
Seems the only one in need of an English lesson is you, Ryan.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:39 pm[...] LINK [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 9:39 pmJudd,
Wrong. The telcos were not being “required” to give up the records, thus section 2703 does not apply. The government asked them to voluntarily give up the records, thus section 2702 applies.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:41 pmI bet there are law firms burning the midnight oil tonight researching this. Could be the mother of all lawsuits.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:45 pm“Seems the only one in need of an English lesson is you, Ryan. Comment by Seixon the STUPID”
Legal language is DIFFERENT than standard english. This is like that STUPID RANT you did on lambert’s site. Your IGNORANCE OF LEGAL LANGUAGE is all that you demostrate SON. Get a CLUE, you’re just TOO STUPID to be here.
And as for your post on the ‘required’, that’s YET ANOTHER FALSE PREMISE you’ve posted.
Stick to Herring Eating contests – you clearly are alergic to ‘legal’ issues.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:46 pmI Love my State!
Seattle PI poll
Was Qwest, the regional phone company serving much of Western Washington, right to refuse to turn over customer phone records rountinely to the National Security Agency?
89.2%
Yes
10.8%
May 11th, 2006 at 9:48 pmNo
Please resist the urge to say “You do the math.”
May 11th, 2006 at 9:51 pmJudd,
You’re a good man, I gave up on Seixon weeks ago. I think he must speak english as a second language, because basic linguistic issues that are typically taught in junior high escape the poor b@st@rd.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:56 pm#90: The government did not legally compel Qwest to help them. Qwest was never taken to court for not following 2703c, namely because the NSA was not legally requiring them to give up the records.
Odd, that. You would think that if this program was so important, they would’ve legally compelled Qwest to assist. Unless, of course, they couldn’t.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:59 pmJudd,
I second what Ryan said. This guy is,…well,… a dope!
May 11th, 2006 at 10:00 pmBut I guess that’s why they are called “trolls.”
[...] Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records “(1) It violates the Stored Communications Act…. [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 10:03 pmSexion, your disengenous “understanding” of the law is apparant…no US government entity is allowed to use the threat of cooersion..ie denial of future government contracts to enforce a request….that is a form of blackmail because cooperating gets a financial benefit where not cooperating denies that benefit, what part of this do you pretent not to understand….
May 11th, 2006 at 10:03 pmI sold my Verizon stock, and bought Quest instead!!! The Symbol is “Q”.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:04 pmI was thinking about this shit today… we sue them, and they turn right around and get it back by raising our rates… we have to penalize them in some other way…
May 11th, 2006 at 10:05 pmSeems to me to boil down to “manly manlyness”. The big tough “Manly” Republicans think it would be sappy not to be able to “coerce” others. “Manly Men” just take what they want and whuddiagonnadoaboutit!
May 11th, 2006 at 10:08 pmOn a related note–I have a year left on my cell phone contract. I contacted Cingular today via email and asked if they would let me out of my contract because they are in breech of the privacy clause in their agreement. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:08 pmSo, TPM Muckraker says that AG Gonzales may have lied just the teeniest bit when he testified in Apr. that this wasn’t happening. Good thing he wasn’t sworn in….
May 11th, 2006 at 10:09 pmI just sent the Chief Ethics Officer at Qwest a letter of support. Sad, but I thanked him for not violating Qwest’s own privacy policies.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:10 pm[...] They may have violated the Stored Communications Act. And FISA doesn’t give them any cover. [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 10:12 pmI want my thousand dollars.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:12 pmwas thinking about this shit today… we sue them, and they turn right around and get it back by raising our rates… we have to penalize them in some other way…
Comment by Pete Bogs
No, Pete,
May 11th, 2006 at 10:12 pmThe way the competition is now, it’d be corporate suicide to raise rates!
Isn’t it beautiful?!!?
BUSH AT 29%
May 11th, 2006 at 10:17 pmhttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings
Interesting comment Clif. On a personal note,would you consider the Income Tax coercive?
May 11th, 2006 at 10:25 pmI’d be happy to allow the gov’t to look at phone records if I could stop them from collecting an embarassing amount of financial information about me,my wife and kids. Oh,and get the companies I buy stuff from to stop selling my personal info along with a listing of buying preferences,products bought,car driven,address. Wait until you learn that the financial institutions are required to turn over a huge amount of info.
Bought or sold a house lately? There is a series of disclosures related to Homeland Security so they can tie the money you use to buy the house into your legitimate sources of financing. Phone data? It’s the least of my worries.
[...] UPDATE: Class-action lawsuit, anyone? [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 10:26 pmSanto, you are simply a psychotic idiot.
I wish TP would ban your a$$.
Nothing you spew here a)makes sense
b)is on topic
Have you taken your meds?
Perhaps you snuck off the floor to contact TP?
Hope Nurse Rachett is on your A$$.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:38 pmHave a Nice Day.
This issue came up on firedoglake. I don’t believe the Stored Communications Act applies to phone records – its targeted to electronic digital communications only. The relevant laws for phone records are Phone records are covered by 18 U.S.C. §§3121-3127 and 50 U.S.C. §§1841-1846. I have a description of them on my post on the subject. The Administration is in violation of these statutes.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:39 pmMash,
Please read the thread before you post, you’re just reposting DEBUNKED NONSENSE that’s already been corrected. Get a CLUE!
May 11th, 2006 at 10:41 pmRyan, I would say Kate Martin would agree with me on the relevance of 18 U.S.C. §§3121-3127 and 50 U.S.C. §§1841-1846. I dont think its DEBUNKED NONSENSE. You want to get the Administration, get them with the right law – the law that applies directly.
And you might want to practice better manners.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:46 pmI want on the class action list.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:49 pmHonorable Senator Nelson,
Your inaction in this constitutional crisis makes you a contributor to the erosion of our constitutional rights. Who is the war on terror against? Did we win the war on drugs? Who was the war on drugs against. Give me an enemy and I will defend our country with my last drop of blood. We are fighting a figment of George Bush’s imagination! He is a know cocaine addict and alcoholic. I do not have confidence in George Bush’s imagination. Please, please, please, stop the madness!
Today I learned the telecom company’s have willingly, without warrant, given perhaps my complete call history since 2001. They may be dissapointed I’ve only called my 78 year old mother. This still concerns me greatly.
Imagine if the British colonialists had this technology? What if the British noticed numerous phone calls between Paul Revere and William Dawes? Would we have had Paul Revere’s ride? Would we have known the Redcoats were coming?
Senator Nelson, this is the reason we have a constitution that has lasted over 200 years. Please do your duty and allow it to prevail another 200 years.
Who would have ever imagined the Nazi party would set fire to the Reichstag? Is it so unbelievable George Bush and the Republicans did the same to the World Trade Center?
Get off your ass and do something! Please, we need patriots, and not Patriot Acts, now more than ever!
America depends upon you!
May God have mercy on our souls!
In His service,
Perry Jordan
Colossians 3:23
May 11th, 2006 at 10:49 pm[...] – Peter Swire and Judd Legum [...]
May 11th, 2006 at 10:56 pmThe law by its nature is coersive but obligatory having been enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people and signed by a duley elected executive, even some times overturned by the judicary as being unconstitutional..ie too cooersive, I for one do not want a government lead by Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, or who ever comes along to be able to FORCE the private sector to turn private information over to government agencies with out a warrant. Simple principal most every one believed in until the current idiot got selected by 5 supreme court judges and re-chosen by Diebold
May 11th, 2006 at 10:56 pmThe law by its nature is coersive but obligatory having been enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people and signed by a duly elected executive, even some times overturned by the judicary as being unconstitutional..ie too cooersive,
I for one do not want a government lead by Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, or who ever comes along to be able to FORCE the private sector to turn my private information over to government agencies with out a warrant.
Simple principal most every one believed in until the current idiot got selected by 5 supreme court judges and re-chosen by Diebold
May 11th, 2006 at 10:57 pmsidi_gramllaw@juno.com
May 11th, 2006 at 10:57 pmPhone companies should be sued by everybody, but look how the cell phone providers screw everyone over with bogus charges, so GOP protects them!
May 11th, 2006 at 11:01 pmLittle by little, we are turning into a country I don’t recognize any more. We are fighting wars for imperialist corporate reasons. We are torturing. People are disappearing. No conversation is safe. Data is being collected on us at every turn. Cameras are watching us. The news is nothing but propaganda. The power structure answers to no one. The middle class is being turned into a third world style working class, and there is no feeling that the masses are finally going to rise up and stop this madness. We know the polls show a growing disapproval. When do they start counting the angry, the disgusted and the horrified? Where are the leaders who are going to unite these voices? I really feel the only solution left is out there on the streets.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:01 pmNow we have many of the pieces of the puzzle:
Concentration camps for those imprisoned within our country, the authorized and endorsed use of torture and human rights violation. The total abandonment of the Constitution, Bill of rights and all civil rights. Illegal war, spying on U.S. citizens without warrants, ignoring of the laws and statutes that get in the way of the REICH-wing agenda.
Changing the laws so that those in “custody” can be made to work for their captors.
Which makes no sense at all, as this so called administration chooses to cherry pick the laws they want to follow and pisses on the rest of them. Do as I say, not as I do..Because I’m the decider, I decide what is best. (oh pleeeeez)
At least Hitler was legally elected.
Controlling the media. Issue propaganda and make it run so as to look like news. Control the message, even on airplanes….recruit the youth.
Let’s mark our calendars, next is the extermination of those the so called administration deem to be less of citizens than the patriots of the Fatherland.
Latinos, the new Jew.
I saw something on the “news” about the immigrants and it rang a bell of some of the Nazis that would measure people’s heads, noses and features to determine if they were pure enough to be Arian. It made my skin crawl.
The religious wing-nut zealots are trying to call all the shots. I always thought that the people in Germany must have had their heads up their butts not to know that a madman and his minions were taking over their country……
Now I know how it happened, funny I always thought I would learn from books, not THE ACTUAL EVENTS.
Anyone have any solutions? If we pick a free country to go to, these clowns will just invade it and spread their so called democracy.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pmQwest is the company that said no. I’m buying as much Qwest stock as I can – I have a feeling they’re share price is going to go through the roof! May as well make money off the excesses of the government – the congressmen certainly are.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:20 pmThat is, congress and administration and their friends.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:21 pmIf we didn’t have the continually growing phone company monopolies, then this problem would probably only be half as big, because there’d be more phone companies who would have refused to be complicit without legal orders.
I’d like to see some kind of class action lawsuits that put these companies completely out of business. Then we could just scrap all the giants and start over again with a large variety of smaller, more customer-oriented, less expensive companies.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:27 pm49 –The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T in January
yeah, I mentioned them in #8 =)
I have been watching them for a long time, since I am a frequent reader of slashdot.org. They have been at the forefront of working to protect our rights for quite a while. Most issues that fly by most citizens, since some is due to technology, but have added to the constant erosion of our constitutional rights by government and corporations.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
May 11th, 2006 at 11:33 pmThat’s Off the Hook…
Think Progress apprises us of the financial liability telcos could face as a result of turning over our telephone records to the NSA…
May 11th, 2006 at 11:36 pmOuch! Our SBC/AT&T fixed costs go up every other month as it is… So much for competition :-( They’ll just pass the cost on to its customers, and take away from its shareholders… and the leadership who did the crimes will remain :-(
May 11th, 2006 at 11:37 pmFood for thoughts…
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, al-Qaeda means “[Arabic al-q'ida, the base : al-, the + q'ida, foundation, base, feminine participle of qa'ada, to sit.]“. But Robin Cook, a deceased British MP, wrote that “Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”
How many times did we hear Bush refer to his “Base”? His Arabic is better than his English. I don’t think he was talking about the so-called “Christian Base”. I’d say he was talking about his Homeboy OBL and his Peeps in Afghanistan. They are hand-in-hand. 9/11 was a joint effort. The truth is out there… something has got to give… Justice will prevail.
Impale Bush!
May 12th, 2006 at 12:03 amIn response to #119: “You are quite possibly the most inflammatory person I have ever encountered on the internet.”
Hey Seixon! Got TUCKS?
May 12th, 2006 at 12:22 amOh, but it’s all in the name of GWOT, so it’s OK.
Look, I have an important message posted at my place that I’d like everyone to read. It’s about Lee Sevilla, the homeless woman of whom I’d blogged last Monday, and I can’t say as I’m too impressed with the almost complete lack of co-operation that I’m getting. It’s like Jill Carroll redux.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:22 amHey Sex Piston! Quoting you here: “You don’t care. All you care about is getting Democrats into power, and you’ll do just about anything to get there. I find that disgusting.”
What in the HELL do you think Bush, with the help of both his brothers, Jeb, in Florida and Marvin, head of security at the Twin Towers, did to get in power? Sell girlscout cookies?
I don’t know where you hide but come visit NYC and see for yourself.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:36 amThere is the big question of what was actually intercepted and stored. Just phone numbers, entire conversations, features automatically extracted from conversations?
The NSA has long had the ability to computer analyze a phone conversation and extract such features as language spoken (along with sub dialects and regional accents), male/female, and age (some crude distinctions along the child-geriatric axis).
Lets call this “call typing”.
Also the NSA can computer analyze phone calls for specific words and phrases such as “ammonium nitrate” in lots of languages.
Lets call this “call keywording”.
Wiretap laws restrict the ability of agencies to record phone calls and listen to the recordings.
Say the NSA has been “call typing” and “call keywording” everybody in the US. They might argue that since no human listened to the phone calls they technically have not wiretapped anybody.
Since the purpose of call typing and keywording is to flag “interesting phone calls” I can’t imagine that they have a system that will flag a conversation that includes “Bush … shoot him” that doesn’t save the whole conversation for an analysist to review.
Is NSA computer flagging legal? Maybe slightly so. But recording flagged conversations is illegal.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:08 amIf you go the Verizon, Bell South and AT&T Websites to write a letter to them to write a letter to express your outrage, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM YOUR PERSONAL INFO IN ORDER TO DO SO….NAME, PHONE NUMBER, EMAIL ADDRESS, ZIPCODE.
VERIZON EVEN REQUIRES THAT YOU REGISTER AND LOG IN TO WRITE A LETTER if you have an account
May 12th, 2006 at 1:11 amAll of this NSA crap just proves that the Senate would be certified stupid to put General Hayden into the CIA > he would use the agency to spy even more on Americans who oppose the vile Bush Regime!
Do not ask Sen. Hillary Clinton for help , because she thinks Dubya has lots of “charm and charisma” > she has sold out to the Bush clan with her hubby Bill! Shame on them both!!!
May 12th, 2006 at 1:40 amI can see it now, Senator Pat Roberts gets a law passed that BANS anyone from suing the phone companies for doing any illegal wiretapping.
Look what they did with ‘tort reform’ and others legal restrictions on lawsuits.
This is one facist, evil, paranoid, power hungry, criminal bunch of thugs.
Impeachment should be the least of their worries, these sons-a-bitches should all be in jail.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:47 amAll of these communication companies, who so nobly surrendered their clients personal data, neglected to first ask for their permission, as they are CONTRACTUALLY obligated to do, considering the “voluntary” nature of the agreement for surrender. Their failure to live up to the terms of the contract, no matter how well intentioned they were, make them liable for breach of contract. Just try dumping them over a cellphone contract, before the contract is up. Many, many, penalties will be rained down upon you. They have only themselves to blame. But I can already hear the Righties hollering about “Frivolous Lawsuits”. Crap. Sigh.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:50 am[...] Update 2: Think Progress wrote that “Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records“. Nice. [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 2:21 am#117, They are obligated to turn over the data of phone records, but only in the case if there is a warrent. Or at least that is my understanding of my verizon contract.
I am pretty suprised about how deaply this is going almost 200 million people are going to be effected by this…
I still vote for – Impeach bush !!
May 12th, 2006 at 2:52 amFor anyone who hasn’t already seen it, the Economics and Media sections of this have some great points regardng this type of dangerous corporate behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dartmouth_Plan
Anyone seen The Corporation?
http://www.thecorporation.com/
also very relevant.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:08 am>>HELP IMPEACH HERE
May 12th, 2006 at 4:46 amAnd to think of all those hours I spent on the phone bashing Bush. Gawd, I’m glad I don’t work for the gov.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:48 amnationalize these phone companies immediately, to be operated and overseen by an impartial board of governors/directors
May 12th, 2006 at 6:10 am[...] On the one hand, if one of these three phone companies provides you telephone service, they could now owe you at least $1,000. That’s because some people believe their cooperation with the NSA in this matter violates certain sections of the Stored Communications Act. Think Progress carries the story: The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer–the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records. [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 6:46 amLet’s have an experiment. Take a subset of 10 million Americans, collect all of their call detail records for a week, and give the data to a few dozen universities for a few months to see if they can find anything interesting.
This is much more trustworthy than what is probably going on, but even proposing it as an experiment would probably cause a firestorm. It would be interesting to see some Senators make the proposal though…
May 12th, 2006 at 6:47 amWhat if the leaker is a Bush Admin representative who wants the opportunity to paint the “leaker” as an America-hating Democrat? Isn’t this the campaign strategy at work, to make Democrats look weak?
May 12th, 2006 at 7:26 amSIGN ME UP! for the class action suit.
Qwest has not turn over records to the FEDS, so switch your service to QWEST.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:48 am@jay randal
I say only one thing: The Carlyle Group.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm
May 12th, 2006 at 7:53 amAs far as the legal rational that the Bush administration will use, they will go with door number (iii):
Unfortunate as it is, I am sure that there is some extra-fine print on most people’s telephone agreements, allowing the Telco’s to use your information under certain conditions. Those conditions will probably be vague enough (some sort of security catch-all) to give legal cover to the whole sorry, un-American affair.
I guess it’s time switch to Quest.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:35 amHey HAYDEN!
Can you hear me now?
I just switched to QWEST,
May 12th, 2006 at 8:39 amit feels great!
Liberals have something to hide. WHich is why they fight this. They know they will be busted for all the hate-Bush rhetoric, and they should. We are at war. Dissent is OK most of the time but not when they are trying to kill us.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:47 amHang the first lawyer that tries to bring a case to court. Kill his dog too.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — May 12, 2006 @ 8:31 am
–
I agree. The lawyers are only in it for themselves and to elect democrats. We suffered through Clinton, never again! He was an immoral man who destroyed himself, at least he did not destroy America, Bush saved it.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:50 amPhone Companies Will Not Be Liable…
From the title of my post YAWN, I hoped the reader was able to grasp the fact that the USA Today story was not anything new, but at least something for the left to drool over. It was already brought to our attention in December of 2005 by James Risen. …
May 12th, 2006 at 9:04 amChicago Tribune’s tech writer had an interesting overview of phone data mining. The view, which is disappointingly buried a bit in the story, seemed to be that it’s theoretically possible but unlikely to work.
Best case scenario is that it would be one of several tools that can be used after they know who the terrorist is. Of course, left unsaid is the fact that they could go to a FISA court and do traditional phone call tracing if that’s the case.
Also left unsaid is what could happen if this was put in the hand of people (like the Bushies) who hate environmentalists, Muslims, Quakers, protestors or any other people who disagree with them. Find a target, find out who they talked to, who those people talked to, etc……round ‘em up.
Even among the techies interviewed for this article, the fear is that the agents won’t understand the limitations of such systems and will just use it as a short cut to haul innocent people in.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0605120138may12,0,4778301.story?coll=chi-homepagepromo440-fea
May 12th, 2006 at 9:06 amI’d guess that if the telcos are pressed to pay, they will produce sufficient documentation to chain-sue the feds to compensate them, which in turn pulls more tax money out of my check.
Why am I continually paying for mistakes made by people I voted against?
May 12th, 2006 at 9:21 amIs everyone in America a potential terrorist?
May 12th, 2006 at 9:26 amCalling all DemDONATING trial lawyers!!! LET’s SUE!!!! Thank you TP, for your efforts to assist terrorists and their symapathizers in achieving better access to modern communication.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Omigod! If I criticize the mass wiretapping of all American citizens, I’m aiding and abetting the ENEMY! I’m helping the TERRORISTS! I’m…
Ah, screw it, I want the goddamned money. Bring on the most lib’rul. Jewwy trial lawyers ya got, and let’s party!
May 12th, 2006 at 9:34 amReally folks,
If you want to send a real message….switch carriers….hit em where it really hurts….quit thinking the first reaction is a lawsuit. Walk away…that is the only way to fix these issues.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:48 amBrilliant!
But the class action lawsuit idea, it won’t work of course,
Why? Well, What are the provable damages?
Pain and suffering? mental anguish? Hard to make a case for either of them since phone companies sell this same info to whomever they like anyway. They say so right in their privacy disclosures. If that doesn’t cause you pain and suffering or mental anguish why should this use of the info do so?
Privacy? Personal identification wasn’t part of the information passed along. Your privacy wasn’t assured in the first place. If companies can have the info why not the gov’t?
The legal case though, if it works, that’ll hurt the phone companis and by extension… you. The penalties for any crime that may have been commited go to…wait for it….the govt. They’ll pass along the expense to their customers (you), by raising.rates. It’d be like a tax on victims! Unless you plan on dropping the telephone as a means of communication.
But it sure is fun to shake fists in the air while screaming about the unfairness of it all though isn’t it?
May 12th, 2006 at 10:14 amLet me get this straight: The government builds a database so they determine who had contacts with and might be associates of KNOWN terrorists. Example they know that 555-1234 is a bad guy number and that some at 555-4321 called that number three or four times. A conclusion could be drawn that maybe the person at 555-4321 might be terrorists, an associate, or a sleeper. Now the other number exists in the database but they are not looked at unless there is a link to these two numbers or another number calling these (like a third party). I am probably just a crazy neocon running dog lackey, but that sounds like a great analysis model to find terrorists cells. I really don’t care because I limit my contact with terrorists or their enablers. Maybe we could just have the terrorists register their cell phones at NSA, that way they could just concentrate on just those numbers? Congress should pass a law requiring terrorists to register! Oh that will get them.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:17 am“Exceptions for disclosure of communications.– A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a communication–”
to a law enforcement agency–
(A) if the contents–
(i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
[(B) Repealed. Pub.L. 108-27, Title V, § 508(b)(1)(A), April 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 650]
[(C) Repealed. Pub.L. 107-296, Title II, § 225(d)(1)(C), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2157]
May 12th, 2006 at 11:38 am[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liaw [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 11:48 amgot this from a friend
i’m not going to get into a legal debate with you since this is a legal issue and, uhm, don’t take this personally, you are not a lawyer. it’s not as simple as that “excerpt” makes it. and remember…the phone companies did the disclosing (not nsa), and they did so voluntarily. qwest declined, as it had the right to do (showing there was no order or requirement). obviously, the others, after a legal analysis, concluded that it was permmissible for them to disclose the data. this doesn’t involve bush or nsa, but the telcos, and for involved legal reasons i won’t get into, is lawful for them to disclose pursuant to government request.
David Schell wrote:
May 12th, 2006 at 12:03 pmwrong. It is illegal.
1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.†The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.
2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.†If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,†then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.â€
(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know†they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)
3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.
Erroll (#4)
May 12th, 2006 at 12:11 pmIt’s not “laudable” to refuse to conspire to violate the 4th Amendment.
Oh, but they paid for a poll that concluded that 60% of Americans APPROVE of the wire taps. So I guess that settles it, eh?
May 12th, 2006 at 12:12 pmHeh heh.
What is wrong with data mining certain al Qaeda phone numbers for patterns as to whom they call?
Comment by Blue State Red #74
Fooled State inb’Red,
…you inbred bi*ch…
…for all the money we’re paying out…
…and all of the blood we’re spilling…
…I don’t expect al Qaeda to be able to MAKE ANY PHONE CALLS!
…I expect them to be in custody…
…and don’t bring up that dumb sh*t about your gods Bushiva and L’il Dick doing all they can…
…after five years since 9/11 the borders are still open and the ports are unsecured…
…and one question for you Fool, if this sh*t is SO above board and necessary…
…why not 1) do it legally, and 2) own up to it straight out…
…why all the secrecy and denial and sh*t in the beginning?
…and don’t say we didn’t want the terrorists to know we…
…they’re not as dumb as you are…
May 12th, 2006 at 12:17 pmMaybe we could just have the terrorists register their cell phones at NSA, that way they could just concentrate on just those numbers? Congress should pass a law requiring terrorists to register! Oh that will get them.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier #202
Retarded Republiscum,
…you may just have something there…
…what’s YOUR phone number?
TRAITOR…
May 12th, 2006 at 12:22 pmhttp://youaredoomed.com
May 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pm[...] Via ThinkProgress: In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math. [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pmTheresa – It seems you or someone else made another mistake in that disclosure statement:
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant or notice, and certainly not without probable cause.
There should be no “not”. This statement says that there is certainly probably cause for reading the email.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:46 pmWhat is wrong with data mining certain al Qaeda phone numbers for patterns as to whom they call?
Comment by Blue State Red
Once again the BSR shows his lack of Protocols.
It’s not a problem when it’s done by trained NSA techs.
IT IS A PROBLEM when Politicians start using this as a Political tool.
BSR wants to Legalize Nixoniasm.
It’s Undemocratic.
Are you an AMERICAN BSR?
Or just a Corrupted NEo-Kook?
Beside that BSR, HOW would bush or cheney KNOW an Al Qaeda [cough cough BS] from another?
May 12th, 2006 at 12:59 pmBush wouldn’t Know a damn thing about encryption, or SIGINT.
Much less Computer Algorithms,
NOR has he ever been trained in this Area.
Retarded Republiscum,
…you may just have something there…
…what’s YOUR phone number?
TRAITOR…
Comment by big papa —
It always brings a smile to my face when you personally attack me. FYI I am sure that my number is grouped in the millions in the NSA databsae and I could care less. Like I said I like to limit my phone conversations with terrorists, so I don’t think I have anything to worry about. Maybe you think NSA should look for bad guys blindfolded, no hands, and cotton stuffed in their ears? Like I said it’s a realy good model for analysis and whomever leaked the details should be frog-marched out the headquarters building at Ft Meade at high noon.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pmBush; Spy on them Damn Liberals!
Ashcroft; Thats Illegal.
Bush; I don’t Care I’m the King!
Ashcroft; No.
Bush; Your Fired you damm liberal lover!!
Ashcroft; Whatever find another stoolie.
Bush; Gonzo? Spy on these Damm Anti-war folks, you know those peace wackos! I want WAR and DEATH DAMNIT
Gonzo; Yes George, Kiss smooch suck suck lick goobersmooch, beding over now sir!
Bush; You Better you Toadie!
Gonzo; Yes Yes Yes Master, I will LIE for you! Suck nuzzle kiss kiss suckle lick drool dribble pant pant
May 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pmTrial lawyers could vindicate their worthless existences by actually taking on this cause.
I’d like to see this happen, if only to make .gov wake up to the fact that the people are not to be stepped on, the government must abide by its own laws, and not the least as revenge for the damn Universal Service Fund fee which is a giant scam for .gov and the telcos.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThink Progress strikes out. Again.
wire communication†means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication;
Comment by Seixon — May 11, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
LMAO what an uninformed POST!!
So SEXLESS, when a EM wave strikes a Sattelite Dish, its then Passed thru Wires, right?
May 12th, 2006 at 1:13 pmLMAO your a Fool.
Not to Mention Sattelite Feeds and EGADS WIRES!!
So a Cray Computer has what Seixon, WIRES!
That carry what? AURAL?
Whats AURAL Seixon?
~~~~~~~~
A common rule of thumb used to describe human hearing is that human hearing is sensitive in the range of frequency of 20 Hz to 20 kHz, though this varies significantly with age, occupational hearing damage, and gender; some individuals are able to hear up to 22 kHz and perhaps beyond, while others are limited to about 16 kHz. Frequencies capable of being heard by humans are called audio or referred to as sonic. Frequencies higher than audio are referred to as ultrasonic, while frequencies below audio are referred to as infrasonic.
~~~
SO AURAL IS Radio Frequencies. AIR Waves, not JUST CABLES!!
LMAO AT SEIXON
Some organisms are able to hear ultrasound and/or infrasound. Some moonbats [IRI, MA, SEIXON, BSR GARY] use ultrasound for echo location while in flight.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:20 pmDogs [IRI MA SEIXON BSR GARY] are able to hear ultrasound, which is the principle of ’silent’ dog whistles. Snakes [IRI MA SEIXON BSR GARY] sense infrasound through their bellies, and there is evidence that whales and elephants [IRI MA SEIXON PSYCHOPHNATS] may use it for communication. See sound for hearing ranges of various organisms [See Fecal Matter, IRI MA SEIXON BSR GARY]
So, the thing to do is sign up with Qwest for all your phone/internet/wireless needs, and let the other companies see how bad an idea going along with the NSA was.
Hit them in their pocketbooks, that is the best way to influence companies.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:21 pmHey #202 – Read the 4th amendment:
“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.”
If you know 555-1234 is a bad guy, why not go to FISA and get a warrant? Wouldn’t that be the constitutional thing to do?
May 12th, 2006 at 1:22 pmWow, it only took about 50 years for a sequal.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:31 pmMcCarthyism II
Nothing to fear except the corruption of power within.
Focus on history and education in schools to prevent from repeating failures of democracy, like the one now. It is just plain sad.
[...] Think Progress lays out the case for why the telecom companies that turned over the records could be liable in court to the tune of tens of billions of dollars . Their reasoning: [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 1:42 pmbesides which – they ignored the intelligence regarding 911 – just flat out ignored it.
NEVER FORGET
and while you’re at it, learn a bit about false flagging…
May 12th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#200, 219: It’s not the copanies we need to influence, its the government … this sort of warrantless snooping on American citizens it contrary to both the letter and spirit of the constitution … we can’t lett government do that and not answer for it.
#220: amen.
Someone said to me about this whole thing “Wow, time to start using VoIP more often.”. I reminded him that the very companies that did this are trying to take control of the net such that in all probability the only VoIP we’ll have is the one provided by our ISP … who will simply hand it over to anyone at anytimg.
Seriously … fixing this abuse of power is a multi-front war, but a good first step is to save the internet. Visit SaveTheInternet.com and sign their petition.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThe flaw in this comment is that the country is always at war. It may not be a war that is popular or televised, but there is always war. This still gives no reason to stomp on the rights bestowed upon us by the founders of this country. I still believe in the power of a few to make a difference and I see a storm brewing in more than a few. It will take some radical changes in the thought process of the many to happen upon change. This change I talk of has no foundation in the correctness of your politics, left, right, up, down; it is about common sense. It is a question of how far can one be pushed till he starts pushing back. I guess I’m a silly optimist but it’s going to happen. The people will know.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:47 pm[...] There’s been a ton of good coverage on The Internets about this issue, so I won’t go into it in depth and bore you with my hacktacularness.ars technica the real scope of the domestic spyingCrooked Timber wanting to know everything/social network analysisDaily Kos 10 reasons Americans should worry about thisMyDD Reward Qwest for not bowing to the NSA’s illegal requestThink Progress Telcos could be liable for billions of dollars [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pm” Let me get this straight: The government builds a database so they determine who had contacts with and might be associates of KNOWN terrorists. Example they know that 555-1234 is a bad guy number and that some at 555-4321 called that number three or four times. A conclusion could be drawn that maybe the person at 555-4321 might be terrorists, an associate, or a sleeper. Now the other number exists in the database but they are not looked at unless there is a link to these two numbers or another number calling these (like a third party). I am probably just a crazy neocon running dog lackey, but that sounds like a great analysis model to find terrorists cells. I really don’t care because I limit my contact with terrorists or their enablers. Maybe we could just have the terrorists register their cell phones at NSA, that way they could just concentrate on just those numbers? Congress should pass a law requiring terrorists to register! Oh that will get them. ”
Your argument works untill the terriost owns or runs a comon bussiness. Say they run a pizza shop and they run ther eoperations out of there. You phone for piza and now you are conected to the terrosts, now say you call for pizza every friday night, about the same time.
The NSA doesn’t know what the call was about, just that you call every friday night and talk to a knowen terroist. You are now a susspect and your life will be turned inside out. They will go thru your taxes, your finaces, you relitives finances, all of it.
Want to bet thet if there is something like a unpaid parking ticket or out standing support payments that will get passed onto the right people? a anoumouse tip to a tips line?
this is the begining of a very Slipery slope. I am also thinking as a canadian does it violate my rights here if i call a AT&T customer? maybe AT&T could be sued in other countries for violations of local and fedral laws, this affects alot more than the USA.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pm[...] The telcos may be liable for tens of billions of dollars for illegally providing your phone records to the government. We explained why on ThinkProgress yesterday. Many of you had questions. We’ve posted the answers here. 2:57 pm | Comment (0) [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pm[...] … Keep reading [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 3:12 pm[...] Full article here… [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pmHEY THIS IS BIG – YOU MUST READ!!!!!
“I know your shocked — SHOCKED! — that George Bush is listening in on all your phone calls. Without a warrant. That’s nothing. And it’s not news.
This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration’s Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI — though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.
The Spies Who Shag Us
May 12th, 2006 at 3:25 pmThe Times and USA Today have Missed the Bigger Story — Again
Think about the possibility of the levying of fines as the Feds way of forcing the ever-shrinking telecom community into bankruptcy….prime targets for a quick state funded purchase. Where is the violation of the law when the “Office of Homeland Communication” has total control over their own customers’ communications records? No need for a court order to authorize anothe branch of your “company” unfettered access to company held records.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pmUnion Busting, Censorship, Gun-control, Mass Hysteria.
At leaast the Nazis had Beer and cooler uniforms.
[...] Think Progress has pointed out that Qwest (the only major Telco who has clearly declined the illegal requests for subscribers’ phone records by the NSA) might just be the only Telco who will NOT have to fork over tens of BILLIONS of dollars for breaking the law: [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm[...] On a final aside while working on this post this afternoon I came across this article over on Think Progress that details exactly why Qwest declined to participate in the raping of the fourth amendment. Essentially what the article says it violates the Stored Communications Act. In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math. [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 4:34 pm[...] Some bloggers are trying to figure out the potential civil liability of the telephone companies if they violated the Stored Communications Act by disclosing call records to the NSA without a court order. I would guess that a lawsuit has been filed already, and if it hasn’t a bunch are coming soon. If a court finds that the telephone companies violated the Stored Communications Act, will they face liability in the range of billions of dollars? [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 4:50 pmWait a second, if they are forced to pay that bill, won’t that really end up costing the goverment. And oh wait a second that my tax money. I’ll take the pay less taxes to pay this off and keep me safe.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:18 pmActually, There’s another law that factors in here, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which states that says in its opening its purpose is:
to make clear a telecommunications carrier’s duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that there’s a possibility that this law overlaps with the law you’re refering to.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:37 pm[...] is on shorting the stock of the companies involved. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmYou are wrong. I guess you missed this day in law school. The US Supreme Court ruled that such phone records are not covered by 4th ammendment provisions. There is no assumption of privacy regarding what staion called another station and for how long. Phone companies provide this data to analysts all the time.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:56 pmI inquired to Verizon to see if they have illegally turned over my records. They actually told me that anything related to the NSA is highly classified, so they would not discuss it. Nice.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:11 pm[...] The Stored Communications Act section 2707 clearly says that phone companies can hand over records given one of five exemptions: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by administrative subpoena. (i) and (ii) are out because the NSA didn’t go through the courts, FISA or otherwise. (iv) is out for obvious reasons. (v) is out because the NSA lacks administrative subpoena authority. Source. This leaves (iii), customer consent. [...]
May 12th, 2006 at 9:34 pm[...] Think Progress has a great post up about how the telecom companies could be liable for selling out their customers. Thankfully, my provider, Qwest, chose not to participate. [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 1:04 amThis can’t be fixed at the polls. They control the new voting machines.
May 13th, 2006 at 2:03 am[...] Update 13.5.: A VC bloggt zurecht, dass dies ein Grund mehr is, Skype zu benutzen – da wird das abhören schon etwas schwieriger. Unterschiedliche Reaktionen in den USA: 63% finden gemäss einer (vielleicht fragwürdigen?) Blitzumfrage, dass das NSA Program “an acceptable way to investigate terrorism” ist! Trotzdem ist das “approval rating” von Bush mit 29% auf einem neuen Rekordtief (Quelle). Die Demokraten rüsten zum grossen Gegenschlag und die Anwälte bereiten wohl schon “class action” Anklagen gegen die drei Telcos vor, die in Billions of Dollars gehen könnten… [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 8:56 am[...] On Thursday, ThinkProgress argued that the telcos could be liable for tens of billions of dollars for turning over phone records to the government in violation of the Stored Communications Act. In this morning’s New York Times, law professor Orrin Kerr agrees: Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University, said his reading of the relevant statutes put the phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order. [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 11:48 amI have been so pissed off at this illegal so called administration for 5 plus years now, and this illegal spying just pisses me off more, so my other half and I just came up with the best one for them yet:
At the end of every e-mail and telephone conversation we will use the following:
To you spies listening in My name is ______, and we believe that GWBush should be impeached and tried at the hague.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:52 amOne of the posts here (I’m too lazy to go back and look for it) suggests that we take our provider to small claims court, which in theory is a great idea, but the way I see it is that the judge would either throw it out/dissallow it as a frivolous lawsuit “clogging his court” (Heavens! What if more and more users start doing this!!), or your case would simply wither on the vine/be ignored, or at very best, the judge would order the telco to pay, but the telco would simply ignore the order, and then all you can do is continue to persue the case, and continue to get nowhere, or, last but not least, if you created a real stir, then the bastards could possibly blackmail you with your own call records. Sure, you could sue ‘em, but in the meantime you are screwed and then left to fight a giant corporation with it’s powerful lawyers with your miserable little lawyer, that is, if you could find a lawyer to take the case in the first place. Still, I’m tempted to try it; it would be cool to see a lot of these cases clogging the small claims courts!
May 13th, 2006 at 2:42 pm[...] Read More [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 4:18 pm[...] You have to be SO blind or stupid now not to see it. [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 7:53 pm[...] WHAT IS THE NEW PROGRAM?: USA Today reported yesterday, “The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.” The three telecommunications companies, who together provide local and wireless phone service to over 200 million Americans, are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. One major telecommunications company, Qwest, declined to participate in the program indicating that it was deeply troubled both by the expansiveness of the request and by the NSA’s assertion that a court order was not needed. Although the telcos reportedly are not directly handing over customers’ names and addresses, the phone number records provided to the NSA “can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) remarked, “We’ve got a new slogan for the AT&T and NSA: Reach out and tap someone.” NOT SO TARGETED AFTER ALL: Bush neither confirmed nor denied the existence of a domestic call-tracking database, claiming yesterday, “We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of Americans.” (Of course, prior to the revelation of the domestic wiretapping program, Bush falsely assured the American public that “anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap — a wiretap requires a court order.”) Bush defended the program yesterday saying that the program was part of an effort to track al Qaeda. “[I]f al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying.” Eugene Robinson responds to Bush’s claim, “Not remotely true, it turns out, unless tens of millions of Americans are members of al-Qaeda sleeper cells — evildoers who cleverly disguise their relentless plotting as sales calls, gossip sessions and votes for Elliott on ‘American Idol.’” Moreover, the Bush “administration’s apparent disrespect for what most of us would regard as one of the most fundamental freedoms of all — a right to privacy — raises deep concerns about the self-inflicted erosion of our way of life.” TROUBLE AHEAD FOR TELCOS: It’s no longer sufficient for Bush to simply state, “Just trust us.” “Congress urgently needs to examine the full range of NSA domestic surveillance,” the Washington Post writes. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) criticized Congress’s unwillingness to provide a check on the administration’s actions. “Unfortunately, the Congress has acted like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the White House and has rubber-stamped everything that’s gone on. And then we find out everything through the press, whoops, they weren’t following the law,” he said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he planned to call executives from Verizon Communications, BellSouth Corp., and AT&T Corp. before his panel “to find out exactly what is going on.” Because the program is being conducted domestically without a court order, the telcos may be liable for tens of billions of dollars for carrying out illegal actions. The call-tracking program could violate the Stored Communications Act which applies a $1,000 penalty (plus attorney’s fees) for each customer “aggrieved by any violation.” The telcos may also have violated the Communications Act, possibly subjecting them to fines levied by the Federal Communications Commission. AT&T is already the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which alleged in January that the company had given the NSA direct access to the records of the more than 300 million domestic and international calls and a huge volume of Internet data traffic. The lawsuit asked a court to halt the collection. The Justice Department told the court late last month it would seek to dismiss the case under the state secrets privilege. [...]
May 13th, 2006 at 10:31 pmHell, wont be long before lawyers will be hunted down and jailed for even thinking about taking a case like this.They’ll be plenty busy representing the jailed disidents that considered bringing the suit. I’m really NOT as crazy as I may seem.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:11 amThese goons probably intimidated the living crap out of these companies. It is certain they were aware of the risks, it’s a rock and a hard place. But this is a FLASH of what the future brings if we as citizens don’t begin to contemplate what our obligations and responsibilities are, at this point, to save our constitution from this maniac and whoever pulls his strings. Kind people, Too kind people, our country needs us.
May 14th, 2006 at 2:00 am[...] UPDATE: AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth could be liable for tens of billions of dollars for illegally turning over phone records. [...]
May 14th, 2006 at 2:50 pm[...] Man I would love it if this went down. [...]
May 14th, 2006 at 7:23 pmForm letter for suing phone companies, make $1000:
May 15, 2006
***
SBC Communication Inc
175 E. Houston
San Antonio, TX 78205
DEMAND LETTER
Dear SBC Communications Corporate Headquarters,
USA today reported on May 11, 2006 that:
“NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did…SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre…”
The 1986 Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701) forbids such a turnover to the government without a warrant or court order:
“if the offense is committed….in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State.”
“The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.” (18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) damages)
This is a formal demand letter for the following:
A. Either (a) any profits made by SBC in turning over my personal information to the US government or (b) $1,000, whichever is greater.
B. Punitive damages in the amount of $1 million dollars
C. Court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
Please send me a check or money order for $1000 on or before June 5. If I don’t receive payment by that date, I’ll promptly file this case in small claims court, for the above damages.
You may reach me during at (email address) or the address above.
Sincerely,
***
“The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.” (18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) damages)
In otherwords, you can sue in civil court, not federal court.
Hopefully SBC settles the case out of court, I send a message (which I will advertise across the internet for thousands of people to repeat), and I make $1000. Everyone wins, except for the phone carriers who handed over this information illegally to the NSA.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:01 amI attempted to call AT&T to talk with them about this particular issue, and basically had the door slammed in my face. They “Will not speak on national security issues” Yea right, what BS. I have since cancelled all my phone services that I had with AT&T / Cingular. I have wirtten a formal letter to the President and CEO of AT&T, and also called him at his home to speak with him. The person who answered the phone was eigther him and lied and said he wasnt around, or he really wasnt around.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:06 am[...] They do have a pointer to this post by Think Progress. It explains how perhaps the telcos have violated the Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c). [...]
May 15th, 2006 at 1:15 pm[...] Evidently, one of the specific abuses of this NSA spying is to keep tabs on who people in the media are talking to. They are doing it under the guise of finding out who leaks confidential information, but it should be noted that this activity may not be illegal, but it certainly is shady. From what I can find, the kind of information being collected by the NSA does not fall under the “pen register” definition of FISA, but according to Think Progress the telephone companies have broken quite a few laws. I can only hope that if they have engaged in illegal activity, the lawsuit will cost them so much in damages that they never undertake this kind of activity again. [...]
May 15th, 2006 at 3:35 pm[...] ThinkProgress has been compiling legal answers to all the questions about telco liability, here and here. Here’s why the consent argument won’t work: 1. The telco language terms of service provide no basis for “consent.†The terms of service of AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon highlight that they will turn over records in response to court orders or subpoenas, which did not exist, according to USA Today. Verizon also mentions “exigent circumstances†– a very slim reed on which to conclude that customers gave actual consent to having all their phone calls disclosed to the government. [...]
May 15th, 2006 at 4:06 pm[...] Who knew that standing up for your customers would pay off? On the flip side, not caring about your customers privacy costs lots of money. Verizon stock takes hit on $50 billion lawsuit. Lawsuit asks Verizon and government to end phone snooping and seeks $1,000 for each of phone company’s 50 million customers. -CNN [...]
May 16th, 2006 at 12:49 amSue Them!
May 16th, 2006 at 1:12 pm[...] I've not been keeping too close an eye on this, but it's starting to sound interesting. First picked this up.. This morning, USA Today reported that three telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – provided “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency. Such conduct appears to be illegal and could make the telco firms liable for tens of billions of dollars. [via] [...]
May 16th, 2006 at 3:20 pm[...] Apparently so… No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
May 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pm[...] ThinkProgress claims the telecomms that rolled over to the administration could be liable for quite a large sum in damages ($1 billion?) to all of their phone customers whose records they’ve turned over. $1,000 per violation. Almost makes me wish Qwest had violated my civil rights. (Just kidding, Qwest! You da telecomm!) [...]
May 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pm[...] ThinkProgress has this up: This morning, USA Today reported that three telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – provided “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency. Such conduct appears to be illegal and could make the telco firms liable for tens of billions of dollars. Here's why: 1. It violates the Stored Communications Act […] [...]
May 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pmUNREAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 17th, 2006 at 11:20 pm[...] Uboat Captain Ed assures everyone that this is nothing new and it is all legal, while the program does not violate the law like the media and some Democratic politicians fairly seethed today, the building of these records does create a further intrusion into private behavior that should concern libertarians. The question we have to answer is whether that intrusion is limited and reasonable given the circumstances. Uboat Ed does links to The Volokh Conspiracy which says everthing is probably OK except for violating a few statues. Neither of these conservatives mentions the need for judicial or congressional oversight. They are both liars. Not all, but most of the fringe right has, as usual sacificed honor and integirty on the altar the Bush Cult whose loyal followers will be rewarded with the illusion of ever lasting security. Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records. [...]
May 18th, 2006 at 3:31 am[...] We’ve been making a lot of noise about the telecom behemoths conniving to turn the Wild West of the Internets into stoopid point-n-click pay-per-view TV — and we’re talkin’ WB and UPN-style lame, not HBO or Comedy Central-style edgy. There basic argument is: Hey, we laid the pipe and now you and me are gonna pay thru the nose for it. Those opposing the corporate greedheads efforts to set up toll booths all over the Info Sooper Highway are calling for “Net Neutrality” which sounds vaguely Swiss, but actually isn’t. (If you’re still scratching your chin about all this, you can bone up here) The other night we were surfing around and lo and behold we came across this site called Hands Off The Internet. At first glance, this looks just like a pro-Net Neutrality site, but look closer. It’s actually sponsored by all the big telecoms — AT&T, Verizon, Cingular Wireless and BellSouth, plus a bunch of shell organizations that toe the greedhead line — and tries to co-opt the basic argument of the pro-Net Neutrality folks: if you love the Internet set it free. As in “Free Market.” Surely we’ve finally figured out the hey-wait-a-minute! difference between ‘freedom’ and ‘free markets’ after however many years of rich-get-richer-poor-get-fucked Republican hegemony. On a related note, there is a lot of speculation on the blogosphere that the reason all the telecomms rolled over for the NSA spooks and named numbers is they were offered a quid pro quo deal promising not to put the kibosh on excessive Internet profiteering. Here’s your chance for a payback: turning over your phone records without your permission or a judge’s court order is illegal and you can sue your phone carrier. Ordinarily, we’re not down with the lawsuit frivolity thing, but there’s nothing frivolous about gang-raping the The Fourth Amendment which very clearly states: “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.” Please, with our blessing, SUE THE TITS OFF THESE PRICKS! It’s the only language they understand. Hands Off The Internet: Wanna Ride, Lil’ Girl? Think Progress: Have Your Day In Court, No Really, Have At It ———- [...]
May 18th, 2006 at 2:39 pmCould someone with some expertise in suing please post a template for what to say in the claim when filing in small claims court? I’d like to insure that this is taken seriously when I file.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmCustomers of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth should boycott their telcos.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pmThey should pull up stakes and move to another copmany, or use Skype.
The unions associated with these companies should go on strike.
Stockholders should be pressured to sell stock or discipline the CEOs.
[...] Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records This morning, USA Today reported that three telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – provided “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency. Such conduct appears to be illegal and could make the telco firms liable for tens of billions of dollars. Here’s why: 1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records. [...]
May 20th, 2006 at 8:24 amsue the shit out of telco
question is it per call or per customer, if its per call phone companies are shitting in there pants
May 20th, 2006 at 4:44 pm[...] Significantly, Smith v. Maryland considers activities that occurred in 1976. Both of the statutes that prohibit the activity described by USA Today were enacted after that date: 1. The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA). The law prohibits the telecommunications companies from handing over telephone records to the government without a court order. (18 USC 2702-3.) There are several exceptions, none of which apply in this circumstance. The SCA was enacted in response to Smith v. Maryland. [...]
May 24th, 2006 at 10:04 am[...] The Dems are chasing another Red Herring ostensibly acting in the best interests of POTUS but really stoking the few bonfires of extremism which already burn uncontrollably. And the news maching grinds on doing what it does best: sensationalizing. My take: This is yet another non-issue [...]
June 18th, 2006 at 9:46 am[...] AT&T, who could be found liable for billions of dollars for handing over “phone call records of tens of millions of Americans” to the National Security Agency, said yesterday it was “revising its privacy policy, explaining to customers that it owns their phone records and can hand them over to law enforcers if necessary.” [...]
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:15 amall you paranoid schitzos are NUTS….. If you have anything to hide then there is a good reason why the NSA was watching you….. GROW UP
July 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am[...] AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth are all giving up our information and might be liable. One emailer said he’s refusing to pay his AT&T phone bill and many others are extremely angry. I say let’s send a message and start switching to companies if we’re able that value our privacy, Some choices are T-Mobile, Nextel and Sprint as far as I know. I’m calling Verizon tomorrow to try and get some answers. (I know that many are locked into contracts.) [...]
July 25th, 2006 at 4:34 am[...] For every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math.read more | digg story [...]
September 1st, 2006 at 3:56 am[...] Page Summary: Thank you TP, for your efforts to assist terrorists and their symapathizers in achieving better access to modern communication. That is the cold reality and they will stand beside their man to the end. Now, I checked, by telephone, with a good friend of mine who is a special agent with one of the telephone companies involved. The only ones liable here are the phone companies, and it looks like they have a loop-hole they can use to justify their actions.read more | digg story [...]
October 26th, 2006 at 12:18 pm[...] Page Summary: Thank you TP, for your efforts to assist terrorists and their symapathizers in achieving better access to modern communication. That is the cold reality and they will stand beside their man to the end. Now, I checked, by telephone, with a good friend of mine who is a special agent with one of the telephone companies involved. The only ones liable here are the phone companies, and it looks like they have a loop-hole they can use to justify their actions.read more | digg story [...]
October 26th, 2006 at 1:24 pmEllie
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:51 amvoip service add a link
A Trackback is one of three types of Linkbacks, methods for Web authors to request notification when somebody links to one of their documents..
March 15th, 2008 at 2:25 amBig Tits Asian Boobs Lactating Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 3:22 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 2:14 am0 fixed apr credit card
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pmBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pmBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 2:38 amMelinda Messenger
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pmSolange
You are sensible. Before receiving notice of your comments, I intended to apologize to all decent human beings for my writing out of turn. I don’t apologize for what I’ve said, only for having ruffled proverbial feathers
March 19th, 2008 at 2:18 amFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:26 ambuy stuffed animals
Afterall, THEY ARE CHILDREN! And, so long as we are on the subject of teaching responsibility and studying, why are people not focusing
March 19th, 2008 at 11:14 amhot lebanese girls
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pmHarry Convict
After this soaks in, I am sure what you have here is really brilliant.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:12 amCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 2:19 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 4:52 amEin For Business Credit
Building Costs
March 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pmben kingsley biography
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pmSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pmBoobs Giant Tits Gigantic Boobs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 4:27 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pmHarry Convict
Are you sure this is correct?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 10:02 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 2:54 amnicole ritchie dui
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pmJessie
If a web page is not listed in the first pages of any search, the odds of someone finding it diminishes greatly (especially if there is other competition on the first page). Very few people go past the first page, and the percentage that go to subseque…
March 27th, 2008 at 8:23 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 11:22 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 10:51 amTotally Free Full Version To Fix My Pc Errors
Tips On How To Improve Memory
March 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 6:22 pmBoobs Monster Tits Big Tits Round Asses
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:52 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 10:47 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:23 amJack
Good job, fine article
April 4th, 2008 at 1:22 ampersonal injury lawyers brooklyn
The profiles tell you about the lawyer’s experience, education, and fees, and perhaps most importantly, the lawyer’s general philosophy of practicing law.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:17 amcustomer massachusetts
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok. do you know what is the first? i`ve the new album at my blog http://sumpit.info
April 4th, 2008 at 6:28 am