[navydevildoc]

As one comment on this article says - "I love the smell of a Class Action Lawsuit in the morning".

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

[luvtolean]

I was thinking along the lines of, "I'm pretty sure the phone companies must tap stuff if the NSA comes calling" when I saw post #45:

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:

(12) “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include–
(A) any wire or oral communication;

Wire communication, defined as:

(1) “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;

Think Progress strikes out. Again.

It is very interesting that Qwest refused, if they in fact did, or did so for verifiable privacy concerns (and not something else).

This is a fascinating case regardless.

Ana and I have discussed this in regards to case law and suits, and the courts have previously ruled there is no "reasonable assumption of privacy" on a phone call, which turns out to be a key point.

[navydevildoc]

Yeah, the case would be interesting... something else to note is that all the lawyers for AT&T, Verizon, etc signed off on it. They either thought that a) "The Formula" made it worthwhile, b) It was legal in their opinion, or c) They never thought it through.

I am leaning on B.

Regarding privacy - while I don't expect privacy on my normal phone calls, I also expect the government to require a warrant before listening in. While this isn't exactly wire tapping, I would think the same standards should apply.

[luvtolean]

Yeah, I agree. They figured it was legal, and probably also figured it best not to piss of the NSA...especially with this administration and a party controlled congress.

[BDA116]

Uh, I know you all love to bash the current administration, but this has been going on for much longer than 6 years.
Ever since Truman moronically created the NSA they have been wiretapping and keeping records.
They aren't listening in to any calls, just compiling a list of calls made from whom to whom and length of time.
You know, just like your cell phone bill.
And just like any law enforcement officer can compile at any time without a warrant.

[smoothrideronli]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Uh, I know you all love to bash the current administration, but this has been going on for much longer than 6 years.
Ever since Truman moronically created the NSA they have been wiretapping and keeping records.
They aren't listening in to any calls, just compiling a list of calls made from whom to whom and length of time.
You know, just like your cell phone bill.
And just like any law enforcement officer can compile at any time without a warrant.

If that is true...what is the debate then? Why is there a question of legality?

[BDA116]

Because of who is in office, and his current pick to be the next CIA chief.
There was an investigation ~30 years ago that proved the NSA had been wiretapping for at least 15-20 years at that time.
Nothing came of it then, either. This time they aren't tapping, just creating a new database both with records they've had for a long time and current records.

[luvtolean]

No, that is absolutely not true. If Clinton was pres and doing this, we'd be having the same discussion.

The media loves to report news, no more, no less.

This administration has done more spying than any other. Whether the terrorist situation warrants it or not, that's a much tougher call.

I say no, but I'll agree both arguments have their merits.

[BDA116]

Yes, it is true. The NSA has had a database of numbers people dial for decades. After 9/11 they wanted to change the way the info was compiled, and asked the telcos for new data.
They do NOT have recordings of the conversations. Have your girlfriend look up Smith V. Maryland from 1979.
The telcos MUST provide records of numbers dialed when the police asks for them. The NSA didn't even require it, as evidenced by Qwest's situation.
Where is all the outrage about klinton wiretapping American businesses in domestic to domestic calls to gain information on the economy?
That was completely illegal, and nobody then or now seems to care.

I guess it is alright for the telcos to sell this exact same data to anyone they want, but hand it over to the NSA and there's hell to pay. I guess they should have just payed for it.

[jaim]

The hubub about the almost all encompassing gathering of phone call information is because the NSA is only supposed to be concerned with communtications regarding foreign activities. Sure, in this global commnuity
a lot of our day to day communication has a foreing endpoint. But to do wide sweep so you they don't have to pick and choose the domestic calls from the foreign calls is not the NSA's charter.
Sure the bush administration goes on about the war on terror, blah, blah, blah. It is not a real war. It is about the same as the war on drugs.
And this whole situation is a major slippery slope. If bush and his cronies are not stopped now what will be next?

[navydevildoc]

Well, I guess we are going to get to see this play out in court...

http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom...04BB4FAADD9%7D

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Yeah, the case would be interesting... something else to note is that all the lawyers for AT&T, Verizon, etc signed off on it. They either thought that a) "The Formula" made it worthwhile, b) It was legal in their opinion, or c) They never thought it through.

I am leaning on B.

Regarding privacy - while I don't expect privacy on my normal phone calls, I also expect the government to require a warrant before listening in. While this isn't exactly wire tapping, I would think the same standards should apply.

My understanding is they did not listen in. Rather they gathered the connection mapping.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

No, that is absolutely not true. If Clinton was pres and doing this, we'd be having the same discussion.

The media loves to report news, no more, no less.

This administration has done more spying than any other. Whether the terrorist situation warrants it or not, that's a much tougher call.

I say no, but I'll agree both arguments have their merits.

Find out who is complaining now and who complained about
Carnivore when Clinton was in office. You will find some of the names the same, these folks are sincere. The rest is a political hit job.

[navydevildoc]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

My understanding is they did not listen in. Rather they gathered the connection mapping.

Correct.

[navydevildoc]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Find out who is complaining now and who complained about
Carnivore when Clinton was in office. You will find some of the names the same, these folks are sincere. The rest is a political hit job.

The names may be the same, but the way it works IS NOT. NSA is currently getting damn near ALL telephone records from US citizens. They do not have judicial oversight as they use that data.

Carnivore needed a court order to obtain e-mail. Wiretapping also needs a court order. Both can be obtained thru FISA, targeted at a select group of individuals who warrant monitoring.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Find out who is complaining now and who complained about
Carnivore when Clinton was in office. You will find some of the names the same, these folks are sincere. The rest is a political hit job.

My point exactly.

Privacy groups don't care who is pres when their privacy in encroached.

The news, AS A WHOLE (yes, some news stations are outwardly lib/con) just wants juicy stories.

But as NDD said, this is much much worse.

It's not that I like Bush bashing, it's that he couldn't care less about my right to privacy.

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Carnivore needed a court order to obtain e-mail. Wiretapping also needs a court order. Both can be obtained thru FISA, targeted at a select group of individuals who warrant monitoring.

Which of course, they didn't even feel the need to bother with this time.

The Justice Department is already trying to use the, "You can't sue us, it's a secret" excuse.

[sheepofblue]

I was specifically referring to the members of Congress.

Your points on the news and privacy groups is valid however I think the actions by both tend to be very politically motivated often.

[luvtolean]

OK, so here's the latest.

Like anything else the Gestapo has done, "we can't talk about this because it's national security".

I hope NJ stands firm and continues with this...

US sues New Jersey over phone company subpoenas - Yahoo! News