Post #255,641
5/16/06 6:51:46 PM
|
Definitely calls for an investigation
but this definitely calls for more investigation. The original article cited Qwest as the hold out...why? (To influence stocks?)
I do note with interest, however, that for all their talk, BellSouth and Verizon aren't threatening with Libel lawsuits. I find this intriguing, given that EFF has started a class action lawsuit against AT&T.
(Besides, are you going to believe CBSNews ;-) )
|
Post #255,644
5/16/06 8:11:37 PM
|
its fear of lawsuits, their denials are very carefully
crafted to not say the words "call detail records"
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,691
5/17/06 9:37:51 AM
|
I did notice that.... ( && Nacchio)
but decided not to mention it. The other interesting detail is the former CEO of Quest. The other big Bell company, Qwest, has declined to comment, though its former chief executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, said through his lawyer last week that the company had rebuffed requests from the security agency to provide calling data in the aftermath of 9/11, citing a lack of legal process. [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/washington/17phone.html?ex=1305518400&en=8140d4505038bc0d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss| NY Times ] Curiouser and curiouser...btw, that EFF lawsuit has been expanded to AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.
|
Post #255,708
5/17/06 11:17:37 AM
|
Non-denial denials anyone?
All of these denials are very carefully worded. "contracts", "agreements", "hand over", "to NSA" etc. I'm surprised the lawyers took so long to find technically correct wording.
-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
|
Post #255,713
5/17/06 11:45:58 AM
|
Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
|
Post #255,715
5/17/06 11:50:57 AM
|
These lawyers are probably internal counsel or on retainer
Those that aren't govt. lawyers, that is. And they're not paid hourly either.
PS: Lawyers don't bill by the minute, they bill by the quarter-hour minimum. If you call your lawyer, he ansewrs the phone and says he doesn't have time to talk to you right now, he probably just billed you 15 minutes for the phone call.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #255,714
5/17/06 11:46:16 AM
|
Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
|
Post #255,776
5/17/06 4:24:57 PM
|
So you think there is a legal distinction
between call detail records and customer phone records?
I'd hate to defend that against the EFF.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #255,779
5/17/06 4:39:12 PM
|
Sure, leave it to the lawyers to have one.
call detail record says on 10 September, number 123.456.7890 called 321.654.0987 at 20:01 for 2.8 minutes.
customer phone record says on 10 September, John Smithey's phone 123.456.7890 called 321.654.0987 in Podunk, IN at 20:01 for 2.8 minutes.
John Smithey's identity is protected in the call detail record!
[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #255,786
5/17/06 4:53:06 PM
|
you think they want to defend that
with 12 customers in the jury box???
I wouldn't.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #255,787
5/17/06 5:03:17 PM
5/18/06 1:15:44 PM
|
I wouldn't either, but IANAL.
Defending the indefensible is their stock in trade. :)
[edit] "pilkunnussija" fix applied!
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
Edited by a6l6e6x
May 18, 2006, 01:15:44 PM EDT
|
Post #255,837
5/18/06 6:22:47 AM
|
s/and/in/
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Yes Mr. Garrison, genetic engineering lets us correct God's horrible, horrible mistakes, like German people. - [link|http://maxpages.com/southpark2k/Episode_105|Mr. Hat]
|
Post #255,893
5/18/06 1:17:06 PM
|
Thanks! You are right.
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #255,795
5/17/06 5:59:47 PM
|
Well, those comments wouldn't go before a Jury, would they?
they're not under oath at the moment. (They could argue that they were attempting to protect National Security, etc.) Shrug. One more note: SAN FRANCISCO - Secret documents that allegedly detail the surveillance of AT&T phone lines under the Bush administration\ufffds domestic spying program can be used in a lawsuit against the telephone giant, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, but the records will remain sealed.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker rejected a bid by AT&T Inc. to return the records that were given to the privacy advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation by a former AT&T technician. But Walker said the records would remain under seal until it can be determined whether they reveal trade secrets. [link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12837911/| MSNBC ] I thought they just filed that case. Something is still not right with this.
|
Post #255,805
5/17/06 8:02:03 PM
|
The EFF v. AT&T case? That was filed on 1/31/2006.
[link|http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/|EFF.org].
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #255,849
5/18/06 9:13:06 AM
|
They won't need to defend anything
if they've been given a get out of jail free card by [link|http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/new-executive-order/|Negroponte]. Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) -----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
|
Post #255,867
5/18/06 10:17:28 AM
|
"If the president does it, it's not illegal"
Governing by decree is the surest way to stop the terrorists hating us for our freedoms.
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #255,870
5/18/06 10:24:24 AM
|
Nice segue to Tom Toles 5/18/2006 cartoon. 27 kB .img
[image|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_05182006_520.gif|0|The Terrorists Hate Our Freedom|437|520]
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #255,877
5/18/06 11:25:38 AM
|
awesome, i hadn't seen that !
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #255,879
5/18/06 11:34:45 AM
|
permits no violations of securities law, does not
hold harmless from a civil suit.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,891
5/18/06 1:05:46 PM
|
Yeah, right.
I, for one, do not believe that those presidential memoranda have the legal force that Bush wants us to believe.
Bush is president of a Republic, he is not (yet) officially emperor. And there is still hope that someday the people will realize that that piece of paper being trampled under foot is the Constitution, and it is important.
(One hopes.)
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #255,895
5/18/06 1:39:47 PM
|
the purpose of a presidential finding is to cover
the operatives ass, not the presidents. It just makes him/the office responsible for the action taken. No denialbility allowed.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #255,903
5/18/06 3:31:40 PM
|
Your point is the most valid
He can write all the Presidential memos he wants. They are NOT laws and they cannot promote the violation of laws.
So, he has given someone "authority" to do something he doesn't have the authority to do.
It won't he upheld by any Judge...not even the right wing supreme court ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
