IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / News Picks Forum / Well, those comments wouldn't go before a Jury, would they?
Post #255,795
by Simon_Jester
5/17/06 5:59:47 PM
Reply
New 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
by Another Scott
5/17/06 8:02:03 PM
Reply
New 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.
     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

Go back to making claims about Wookies and Endor.
62 ms