Big Brother is watching you

[Felicia Katt]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

Scipio, you are right about not convincing him, since he keeps quoting a case from 1979, and ignoring the law passed in 1988, known as the Stored Communication Act, as found in UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 18. CHAPTER 121 which established a right to privacy for the very type of records now being plundered by the NSA, illegally. There are only five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:
(i) a warrant;
(ii) a court order;
(iii) the customer’s consent;
(iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or
(v) by “administrative subpoena.”
The first four clearly don’t apply and the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority.

The Telco's who gave up the records without regard to the law face a fine of up 1000.00 for each person's records they failed to safeguard. Thats billions of dollars in potential liability exposure. Class action lawsuits have already been filed. The Congress may be toothless and gutless, but the trial lawyers are like pitbulls and the the Administration and the telco's may be in for a mauling.

FK

[NWVegan]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

Scipio, you are right about not convincing him, since he keeps quoting a case from 1979, and ignoring the law passed in 1988, known as the Stored Communication Act, as found in UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 18. CHAPTER 121 which established a right to privacy for the very type of records now being plundered by the NSA, illegally. There are only five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:
(i) a warrant;
(ii) a court order;
(iii) the customer’s consent;
(iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or
(v) by “administrative subpoena.”
The first four clearly don’t apply and the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority.

The Telco's who gave up the records without regard to the law face a fine of up 1000.00 for each person's records they failed to safeguard. Thats billions of dollars in potential liability exposure. Class action lawsuits have already been filed. The Congress may be toothless and gutless, but the trial lawyers are like pitbulls and the the Administration and the telco's may be in for a mauling.

FK

Sexy and intelligent.
Felicia...
I think im in love.

[White_Male_Canada]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

Scipio, you are right about not convincing him, since he keeps quoting a case from 1979, and ignoring the law passed in 1988, known as the Stored Communication Act, as found in UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 18. CHAPTER 121 which established a right to privacy for the very type of records now being plundered by the NSA, illegally. There are only five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:
(i) a warrant;
(ii) a court order;
(iii) the customer’s consent;
(iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or
(v) by “administrative subpoena.”
The first four clearly don’t apply and the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority.

The Telco's who gave up the records without regard to the law face a fine of up 1000.00 for each person's records they failed to safeguard. Thats billions of dollars in potential liability exposure. Class action lawsuits have already been filed. The Congress may be toothless and gutless, but the trial lawyers are like pitbulls and the the Administration and the telco's may be in for a mauling.

FK

You confuse a law pertaining to internet emails to a law dealing with telephone numbers.

Try reading the entire law next time before posting such nonsense

Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

" .Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
communication -

...appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990; or
(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
emergency....to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information..."

[White_Male_Canada]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

FK

Sexy and intelligent.
Felicia...
I think im in love.

Next time,read the entire law that pertains to EMAILS



Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

" .Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
communication -

...appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990; or
(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
emergency....to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information..."

[Felicia Katt]

Sexy and intelligent.
Felicia...
I think im in love.

thanks for the compliments

FK

[Felicia Katt]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you hear about the 200 million or so different life or death situations that your and my phone companies thought were so urgent, imminent and potentially devastating they could only be averted by releasing our private records?

neither did I.

FK

[White_Male_Canada]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you hear about the 200 million or so different life or death situations that your and my phone companies thought were so urgent, imminent and potentially devastating they could only be averted by releasing our private records?

neither did I.

FK

Very insulting,and ignorant from those who still live in a 9/10 world.

PS: next time,try the 1934 Communications Act . But you`ll still be wrong.Consistent,but wrong.

[Felicia Katt]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you read the statute being questioned? I did. It extends privacy rights to "a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage", not just to email. The broad definition in the statute clearly includes records of calls. Did you read how the statute making it illegal to disclose such stored electronic communications except where there was a warrant or subpoena or court order was amended or repealed after 9-11 to allow for blanket release of records? Neither did I. Can you relate how, in good faith, your phone service provider or mine "reasonably believes that (there is) an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person" that would justify the disclosure of all our information? Or all of everyone's information? Neither can I.

FK

[NWVegan]

The law clearly states only in cases where there is proof of an emergency is it legal to release this information.
White_Male_Canada...
What are you smoking? Nice touch posting pics of ground zero by the way.
What does 9/11 have to do with the phone records of 200 million americans?
You simply posted that for shock factor, but it wont do you any good. Even if this was somewhat related to terrorism, which it isnt, I would never trade my security for my freedom. Bush has added amendments to over 100 different bills that he has signed, saying that he has no obligation to abide by the laws he just signed. This is a president clearly overstepping the constitution, and blanketing it with the thought of national security. Not to mention if it was up to Bush, we would probably be living in a christian theocracy. But that is an entirely different argument altogether.

[The American Nightmare]

So... We've been in a state of emergency for the past five years?