Verizon says phone record disclosure is protected free speech
Verizon says phone record disclosure is protected free speech
By Nate Anderson | Published: May 07, 2007 - 01:48PM CT
Verizon is one of the phone companies currently being sued over its alleged disclosure of customer phone records to the NSA. In a response to the court last week, the company asked for the entire consolidated case against it to be thrown out—on free speech grounds.
The response also alleges that the case should be thrown out because even looking into the issue could violate state secrets, of course, but a much longer section of the response tries to make the case that Verizon has a First Amendment right to "petition" the government. "Based on plaintiffs' own allegations, defendants' right to commu...
(continues)
By Nate Anderson | Published: May 07, 2007 - 01:48PM CT
Verizon is one of the phone companies currently being sued over its alleged disclosure of customer phone records to the NSA. In a response to the court last week, the company asked for the entire consolidated case against it to be thrown out—on free speech grounds.
The response also alleges that the case should be thrown out because even looking into the issue could violate state secrets, of course, but a much longer section of the response tries to make the case that Verizon has a First Amendment right to "petition" the government. "Based on plaintiffs' own allegations, defendants' right to commu...
(continues)
...
These articles are about Verizon Communications. Not Verizon Wireless. Two different companies.
...
Nice try.
Wikipedia
Verizon Wireless, Headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, the company is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
...
One owns the other. Aside from that two different companies with two different governing bodies that have two different guidelines when it comes to phone records. VZW does not release customers phone records to government agencies without due process. Verizon WIRELESS does not condone the release of phone records as a protected free speech. Verizon COMMUNICATIONS has a much more lax policy.
...
that is not verizon wireless that is verizon communications. which is a totally different company.
...
MidnightDT said:
that is not verizon wireless that is verizon communications. which is a totally different company.
Regardless, it is still very wrong of them to do it, though nearly all the other telecoms are doing it too (including ATT... remember the 'secret room' in their San Francisco building that allowed the NSA direct access to all of their customer's data?).
Ultimately, the fault is the Bush administration's, who bullied the telecoms into complying in the first place. Civil liberties don't mean much to the current administation, I can't wait for those chumps to be out of office. But the telecoms definitely rolled over and played dead for them, so its on them too.
IF Verizon Wireless said no t...
(continues)
...
Eh, Presidents will always put National Security over Civil Liberties being the Executive Branch.
Only difference is that Bush doesn't try to hide it. If you want Civil Liberties, pay attention to who is in Congress and the Justice System.
Only difference is that Bush doesn't try to hide it. If you want Civil Liberties, pay attention to who is in Congress and the Justice System.
...
sangyup81 said:
Eh, Presidents will always put National Security over Civil Liberties being the Executive Branch.
Only difference is that Bush doesn't try to hide it. If you want Civil Liberties, pay attention to who is in Congress and the Justice System.
I don't think Bush gets off that easy. He basically went Orwell on America's ass, but he could've been far-sighted instead and realized that when you go that far over the line, the country is eventually going to push back, undermining what you were trying to do in the first place.
However, Bush being a dumbass, I do not expect him to think stuff through to that extent. 🙄
Good point about Congress, though. The GOP-controlled Congress definit...
(continues)
...
Not only has he and the Justice Department vastly overstepped their boundaries, they also put forth legislation to retroactively immunize them from the consequences.
They should change the saying from:
"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
to
"If you have done something wrong today, just legalize it tomorrow retroactively"
They should change the saying from:
"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
to
"If you have done something wrong today, just legalize it tomorrow retroactively"
...
I think if it were a "totally" different company, one of the companies would be suing the other for using it's logo.
...
People see different names and forget all about parent companies, spinoffs, subsidiaries, and etc.
Convoluted ownership makes it easier to fool people who accept things without critical analysis.
Convoluted ownership makes it easier to fool people who accept things without critical analysis.
...
Verizon Wireless owns and operates one of the the largest wireless telecommunications network in the United States and the second largest wireless telecommunications in Puerto Rico along with Puerto Rico Telephone (PRT) which was recently acquired by América Móvil, based on total wireless customers.
As of April 2007, the company served a total of 60.7 million U.S. subscribers and has the largest service by area. Headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, the company is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
- Source Wikipedia
Like I said, nice try.
As of April 2007, the company served a total of 60.7 million U.S. subscribers and has the largest service by area. Headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, the company is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
- Source Wikipedia
Like I said, nice try.
...
captainplooky said:
the company is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
- Source Wikipedia
Like I said, nice try.
Sure Plooky, but you do realize that nearly ALL the telecoms knuckled under to Bush and the NSA, right? So why single VZW out? 👀
Just wonderin'.
...
Verizon is trying a tactic that the others aren't.
Claiming first amendment rights for the corporate entity that is Verizon.
They are claiming:
This in part is a problem with recognizing corporations as "people".
Claiming first amendment rights for the corporate entity that is Verizon.
They are claiming:
the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.
...
"Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers.
This in part is a problem with recognizing corporations as "people".
...
Yeah so Verizon Wireless is actually Cellco partnership, DBA - Verizon Wireless...they are owned by the same company that owns Verizon Communications but there not the same company...For all you people that think you have stock in Verizon Wireless think again...Verizon wireless is a privately traded corporation so there is no stock! Trust me if they were the same company then the employees of the wireless would recieve a discount on there home phone service and they don't. Verizon Wireless did not share it's records or information with the NSA...I do feel however if your under investigation for being a possible terrorist than the goverment should look to see you records and thats what they were doing...they weren't looking at every joe shmo'...
(continues)
(continues)
...
ilovevzw said:
..I do feel however if your under investigation for being a possible terrorist than the goverment should look to see you records and thats what they were doing...they weren't looking at every joe shmo's phone calls...but if they believed you were in contact with people from al kida (SP?) then yes you were probably spied on as you should be
Mm... I don't think its that simple.
In the ATT case in San Francisco, for example, the NSA was apparently able to tap directly into the data stream, so they could listen in on anyone's conversation, monitor anyone's internet usage, etc.
And with no real judicial oversight (the Bush administration has repeatedly broken/ignored the FISA laws), who's t...
(continues)
...
If you do not have anything to hide than you should not care if someone is listening to your calls. I will voluntarily allow anyone who wants to listen to tap into my calls. I have nothing to hide at all. Why such the stink over this?
...
If you do not have anything to hide than you should not care if someone is listening to your calls.
What a load of garbage. I cringe every time I here someone utter such nonsense.
If you dont' have anything to hide, then go ahead give up the rights afforded to you under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since you are willing to place full and utter trust in the government.
While your at it, stop calling yourself an American.
The Eternal Value of Privacy
Brush Schneier, 05.18.06 | 2:00 AM
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/se ... »
The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, ...
(continues)
...
captainplooky said:...
If you do not have anything to hide than you should not care if someone is listening to your calls.
What a load of garbage. I cringe every time I here someone utter such nonsense.
If you dont' have anything to hide, then go ahead give up the rights afforded to you under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since you are willing to place full and utter trust in the government.
While your at it, stop calling yourself an American.
The Eternal Value of Privacy
Brush Schneier, 05.18.06 | 2:00 AM
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/se ... »
The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in
(continues)
...
I think this quote sums it up best "Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither and will lose both"
...
...they weren't looking at every joe shmo's phone calls...
Au contraire monfre.
Systemshock covered it as well, but I want to add further to it. Here you can find more information about the wiretapping rooms being constructed:
https://www.phonescoop.com/forums/forum.php?fm=m&ff= ... »
I'd encourage you to do some reading on the matter instead of relying on newscasters to give you the full scoop and trusting your government officials to not abuse their powers.
...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NP15BO0&sh ... »
WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Am
(continues)
...
thats right Verizon Communications owns 55% of VZW but that doesnt make VZW the same company as VZ.
Verizon Wireless has not given any information to the NSA about its customers, period
you can try to spin this anyway you want your anger is misguided and you are posting this on the wrong forum.
Verizon Wireless has not given any information to the NSA about its customers, period
you can try to spin this anyway you want your anger is misguided and you are posting this on the wrong forum.
...
Actually VW has stated:
Now, considering the above statement when juxtaposed against information pertaining to the FBI's practices, I'd have to disagree.
https://www.phonescoop.com/carriers/forum.php?fm=m&f ... »
Of course, Verizon denies such actions.
The government has made it quite clear that they believe even acknowledging whether or not they have is a threat to national security.
(continues)
Verizon Wireless said only that it "works closely with law enforcement and public safety officials. When presented with legally authorized orders, we assist law enforcement in every way possible."
Now, considering the above statement when juxtaposed against information pertaining to the FBI's practices, I'd have to disagree.
https://www.phonescoop.com/carriers/forum.php?fm=m&f ... »
Of course, Verizon denies such actions.
The government has made it quite clear that they believe even acknowledging whether or not they have is a threat to national security.
...
you can try to spin this anyway you want your anger is misguided and you are posting this
(continues)
...
VZ may own a majority of the shares of VZW, but they are by no means the same company. Each has its own policies and procedures that are independant of each other, each has its own leadership. VZW policies are created by VZW, not VZ. What VZ does or doesnt do has nothing at all to do with VZW.
...
So you think VZW should violate government mandates and not work with law enforcement when required to do so?
Well, luckly VZW cares about their business and will continue to follow government mandates so they will not be fined...
Next are you going to start complaining that VZW doesnt opperate on parts of the RF spectrum that is doesnt own and that they wont work with manufactures to get phones that violate FCC regulations?
Well, luckly VZW cares about their business and will continue to follow government mandates so they will not be fined...
Next are you going to start complaining that VZW doesnt opperate on parts of the RF spectrum that is doesnt own and that they wont work with manufactures to get phones that violate FCC regulations?
...
I don't think you understand.
Let me ask you this.
If Verizon and the other implicated carriers have done nothing wrong, then why is the current administration so forcefully trying to enact retroactive immunity for the carriers?
Also, seeing as how you seemed to have missed it, the disclosure in question to the NSA was done in secret, with no probable cause, and for the purposes of data mining.
Also, you seemed to have missed other key details.
Surely ...
(continues)
Let me ask you this.
If Verizon and the other implicated carriers have done nothing wrong, then why is the current administration so forcefully trying to enact retroactive immunity for the carriers?
Also, seeing as how you seemed to have missed it, the disclosure in question to the NSA was done in secret, with no probable cause, and for the purposes of data mining.
Also, you seemed to have missed other key details.
Verizon
"Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers.
Surely ...
(continues)
...
Why are you having so much trouble grasping the fact that VZ and VZW are not the same company?
I dont care what VZ does or has done, VZW only complies with government mandates and only coops with government agencies when it is required to do so.
Your comments about VZ dont belong in this forum as they have nothing to do with VZW and nothing to do with mobile phones either.
btw, do you call AAA plumbing when you need your car towed?
I dont care what VZ does or has done, VZW only complies with government mandates and only coops with government agencies when it is required to do so.
Your comments about VZ dont belong in this forum as they have nothing to do with VZW and nothing to do with mobile phones either.
btw, do you call AAA plumbing when you need your car towed?
...
Why are you having so much trouble grasping the fact that VZ and VZW are not the same company?
If the matter is as simple as you would like to believe, can you please explain why Verizon Communications and Verizon Wireless seemingly share the same Corporate Board of Directors with the exception of one or two people? Please note, I'm not referring to the executive leadership.
As stated by Verizon Communications, the parent company of Verizon Wireless:
...
The business of the Corporation is conducted by management, under the direction of the Board of Directors. The Board, and each committee of the Board, has complete access to management. In addition, the Board and each committee
(continues)
...
You really need to look into how companys work if you think the board of directors runs a company...
You continue to confuse VZW and VZ in your posts, you post things that VZ does as if VZW did them.
VZ and VZW are not the same company, they are not run by the same people, they do not have the same policies and dont base policy off what the other company does.
This is a forum about mobile devices, not landlines, so please keep your idiotic trolling to yourself.
You continue to confuse VZW and VZ in your posts, you post things that VZ does as if VZW did them.
VZ and VZW are not the same company, they are not run by the same people, they do not have the same policies and dont base policy off what the other company does.
This is a forum about mobile devices, not landlines, so please keep your idiotic trolling to yourself.
...
chocolateman85006 said:
If they wanna eavesdrop, let's give them something to remember!!!
Going to find a way to work the words "suitcase nuke" into your every day conversations? ;)
...
Your phone records are not protected, the U.S Supreme Court has already ruled that records held by a third party (Verizon and VZW, banks, cable companies, etc) are not protected under the fourth amendment. I am at work now so cant look up the case law. This is nothing new, all it takes to get your phone records is an administrative subpoena, which does not require the probable cause necessary to support a search warrant. Your records are NOT private information.
Wiretapping is a different story though.
Wiretapping is a different story though.
...
🤣
Perhaps you might wanna inform Congress of that remarkable information.
That could save them the trouble of continuing the investigation in the disclosure and data-brokers.
Perhaps you might wanna inform Congress of that remarkable information.
That could save them the trouble of continuing the investigation in the disclosure and data-brokers.
...
Seriously though, if your referring to Smith v. Maryland, which I think you are, it is not as clearcut as you make it out to be.
Voluntarily being the key.
The Stored Communications Act most likely has more relevance.
"This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he [...] voluntarily turns over to third parties."
Voluntarily being the key.
The Stored Communications Act most likely has more relevance.
...
VZW has privcy guidelines though, no customer information is ever given out except when mandated by government regulations, despite what plooky thinks... since he appears to not be able to tell that Verizon Wireless and Verizon Communications are not the same company because they each share a word in their buisness name.
...
VZW has privcy guidelines though, no customer information is ever given out except when mandated by government regulations, despite what plooky thinks...
Funny things is, Verizon Communications has privacy guidelines too, yet they appear to have not followed them and have changed their tune from denying it to claiming it's within their first amendment rights to break the law.
I don't know what is more laughable... your steadfast refusal to accept that companies can and do break policies or your inability to recognize the similarities between the two companies and claim that ownership of one by the other has no relevance.
Whatever helps you sleep I suppose.
...
Someone please kill this thread.
I can't believe it's still being discussed.
Verizon Wireless and Verizon Communications have two different policies regarding sharing of records BECAUSE they're two different companies.
I can't believe it's still being discussed.
Verizon Wireless and Verizon Communications have two different policies regarding sharing of records BECAUSE they're two different companies.
...
Two different companies, one of which owns a majority stake in the other.
Two different companies, with essentially the same Board of Directors.
VC has said about their policies:
VC denied even being involved. Now they are claiming it's their first amendment right to ignore those policies.
To claim they are not related because VW will follow their policies whereas VC will not is silly.
Almost as silly as ignoring the implications of these actions.
Two different companies, with essentially the same Board of Directors.
VC has said about their policies:
"Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers.
VC denied even being involved. Now they are claiming it's their first amendment right to ignore those policies.
To claim they are not related because VW will follow their policies whereas VC will not is silly.
Almost as silly as ignoring the implications of these actions.
...
Hey plooky, why dont you tell everyone how VZ publishes a list of their customers containing name, address and phone number! Then they give it away for free to all their customers! OMG! The huge privacy violation! Everyone should complain!
btw, what I am refering to is called a phonebook.. its something landline companies do.. Its something VZW wont ever do, yet from what you are saying VZW does everything VZ does because VZ owns 55% of VZW..
Although I am sure you wont be able to see that the companies arent run by the same people and dont follow the same policies, I hope anyone that might have been tricked by you can see from my example the huge discrepency in company policies, as land line companies reserve the right to publish you...
(continues)
btw, what I am refering to is called a phonebook.. its something landline companies do.. Its something VZW wont ever do, yet from what you are saying VZW does everything VZ does because VZ owns 55% of VZW..
Although I am sure you wont be able to see that the companies arent run by the same people and dont follow the same policies, I hope anyone that might have been tricked by you can see from my example the huge discrepency in company policies, as land line companies reserve the right to publish you...
(continues)
...
🤣 What a simple-minded flawed comparison.
Do you honestly believe it to be intellectually honest to compare a phonebook to a secret government wiretap program?
Do you honestly believe that ownership and directorship of a corporation has no influence on that corporation?
You have obviously demonstrated a lack of knowledge as it pertains to this, and I sincerely encourage you to do some background reading on it to understand the full scope of the problem and implications.
Only by being informed can you prevent yourself from making the foolish statements you have here.
Do you honestly believe it to be intellectually honest to compare a phonebook to a secret government wiretap program?
Do you honestly believe that ownership and directorship of a corporation has no influence on that corporation?
You have obviously demonstrated a lack of knowledge as it pertains to this, and I sincerely encourage you to do some background reading on it to understand the full scope of the problem and implications.
Only by being informed can you prevent yourself from making the foolish statements you have here.
...
OH! I get it now! Two different companies with two different board of directors actually.. WILL have the same policy 'cause heck! They have the same name.
No, wait.. you're just a moron...got it
No, wait.. you're just a moron...got it
...
I find it more moronic to trust such corporations to abide by the law when they have openly stated they are willing and able to violate that law.
Perhaps even more moronic is to not realize that the ownership and directorship of a corporation has a profound influence on a corporation.
Maybe when you grow up, you'll understand.
Perhaps even more moronic is to not realize that the ownership and directorship of a corporation has a profound influence on a corporation.
Maybe when you grow up, you'll understand.
...
