So you think there is a legal distinction

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #255,776 by bepatient 5/17/06 4:24:57 PM Reply	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 by a6l6e6x 5/17/06 4:39:12 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/17/06 4:53:06 PM Reply	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 by a6l6e6x 5/17/06 5:03:17 PM 5/18/06 1:15:44 PM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #255,837 by CRConrad 5/18/06 6:22:47 AM Reply	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 by a6l6e6x 5/18/06 1:17:06 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 5/17/06 5:59:47 PM Reply	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	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 by Silverlock 5/18/06 9:13:06 AM Reply	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 by GBert 5/18/06 10:17:28 AM Reply	"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 by Another Scott 5/18/06 10:24:24 AM Reply	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 by GBert 5/18/06 11:25:38 AM Reply	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 by boxley 5/18/06 11:34:45 AM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 5/18/06 1:05:46 PM Reply	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 by boxley 5/18/06 1:39:47 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 5/18/06 3:31:40 PM Reply	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]

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

iwethey.org

This isn't AOL, despite the best efforts of a nameless few.
92 ms