I did notice that.... ( && Nacchio)

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #255,691 by Simon_Jester 5/17/06 9:37:51 AM Reply	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 by Silverlock 5/17/06 11:17:37 AM Reply	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 by jbrabeck 5/17/06 11:45:58 AM Reply	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 by drewk 5/17/06 11:50:57 AM Reply	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 by jbrabeck 5/17/06 11:46:16 AM Reply	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)

So USA Today is full of it, I guess? - (bepatient) - (30) - May 16, 2006, 05:48:47 PM EDT

Or 2 of 3 carriers are. -NT - (Silverlock) - May 16, 2006, 06:18:47 PM EDT

Definitely calls for an investigation - (Simon_Jester) - (22) - May 16, 2006, 06:51:46 PM EDT

its fear of lawsuits, their denials are very carefully - (boxley) - (21) - May 16, 2006, 08:11:37 PM EDT

I did notice that.... ( && Nacchio) - (Simon_Jester) - (4) - May 17, 2006, 09:37:51 AM EDT

Non-denial denials anyone? - (Silverlock) - (3) - May 17, 2006, 11:17:37 AM EDT

Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer? -NT - (jbrabeck) - (1) - May 17, 2006, 11:45:58 AM EDT

These lawyers are probably internal counsel or on retainer - (drewk) - May 17, 2006, 11:50:57 AM EDT

Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer? -NT - (jbrabeck) - May 17, 2006, 11:46:16 AM EDT

So you think there is a legal distinction - (bepatient) - (15) - May 17, 2006, 04:24:57 PM EDT

Sure, leave it to the lawyers to have one. - (a6l6e6x) - (14) - May 17, 2006, 04:39:12 PM EDT

you think they want to defend that - (bepatient) - (13) - May 17, 2006, 04:53:06 PM EDT

I wouldn't either, but IANAL. - (a6l6e6x) - (2) - May 18, 2006, 01:15:44 PM EDT

s/and/in/ -NT - (CRConrad) - (1) - May 18, 2006, 06:22:47 AM EDT

Thanks! You are right. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - May 18, 2006, 01:17:06 PM EDT

Well, those comments wouldn't go before a Jury, would they? - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - May 17, 2006, 05:59:47 PM EDT

The EFF v. AT&T case? That was filed on 1/31/2006. - (Another Scott) - May 17, 2006, 08:02:03 PM EDT

They won't need to defend anything - (Silverlock) - (7) - May 18, 2006, 09:13:06 AM EDT

"If the president does it, it's not illegal" - (GBert) - (2) - May 18, 2006, 10:17:28 AM EDT

Nice segue to Tom Toles 5/18/2006 cartoon. 27 kB .img - (Another Scott) - (1) - May 18, 2006, 10:24:24 AM EDT

awesome, i hadn't seen that ! -NT - (GBert) - May 18, 2006, 11:25:38 AM EDT

permits no violations of securities law, does not - (boxley) - May 18, 2006, 11:34:45 AM EDT

Yeah, right. - (ben_tilly) - (2) - May 18, 2006, 01:05:46 PM EDT

the purpose of a presidential finding is to cover - (boxley) - May 18, 2006, 01:39:47 PM EDT

Your point is the most valid - (bepatient) - May 18, 2006, 03:31:40 PM EDT

One other possibility... - (jb4) - (3) - May 17, 2006, 06:13:56 PM EDT

Huh? I was under the impression, this IS "Carnivore". DYMV? -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - May 18, 2006, 06:31:32 AM EDT

Not supposed to be... - (jb4) - May 18, 2006, 02:29:04 PM EDT

No, Carnivore is Dead... *BUT*... - (folkert) - May 18, 2006, 04:13:37 PM EDT

Now Wired is into the act.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - May 17, 2006, 06:19:29 PM EDT

CCCP redux. -NT - (mmoffitt) - May 18, 2006, 09:41:35 AM EDT

Home of the sash-swinging flasher!
380 ms