Government lawyers claim that phone customers consented to the wiretaps.

[The Backlash Cometh]

Words just fail me:

Government lawyers say Americans consented to have phone records seized
Friday's Washington Post reveals the Bush Administration's legal response to relevations that tens of millions of Americans personal phone records have been acquired by the National Security Agency. Excerpts from the Post follow

One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records -- and even the stored content of calls and e-mails -- because customers "have consented to that" when they establish accounts. The fine print of many telephone and Internet service contracts includes catchall provisions, the lawyer said, authorizing the company to disclose such records to protect public safety or national security, or in compliance with a lawful government request.

"It is within their terms of service because you have consented to that," the lawyer said. If the company also consents, "and they do it voluntarily, the U.S. government can accept it."

Verizon's customer agreement, for example, acknowledges the company's "duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of your use of our service," but it provides for exceptions to "protect the safety of customers, employees or property." Verizon will disclose confidential records, it says, "as required by law, legal process, or exigent circumstances."

Like the other companies named by USA Today, Verizon declined to confirm or deny that it had turned over customer records. "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy," spokesman Peter Thonis said in a statement. But Verizon Wireless, a joint venture with Britain's Vodafone Group PLC, flatly denied involvement in the program.




http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Government_lawyers_say_Americans_consented_to_0512.html

[sandnsea]

1. Corporations can overturn the Constitution?

Yeah yeah, I know. But honestly, these people will just stop at nothing.

There's laws against signing over Constitutional rights too, you simply cannot do it.

[burythehatchet]

20. Fascism, defined

[KansDem]

30. So let's write a new document and call it "The Corportution!"

:think:

It can replace that old, dusty, seldom-used Constitution.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Here it's good to remember that no reasonable person would ever

believe that tens of millions of Americans were working with the terrorists. This was a warrantless fishing expedition and if it's proven that there was any plans to use this information for political dirty tricks, I say we file charges against the GOP and dissolve that organization forever like we did the Mafia.

[Hekate]

3. I couldn't bear to watch the justification on the news...

ABC news came on while I was feeding my grandbaby dinner. I had to turn it off because I figured screaming "F--ing A--holes" would probably traumatize the tyke. Besides, at 18 months he's a great imitator, and I had to ask if I wanted him to hear that kind of talk from his Nana.

PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer was worse, because they devote so much time to individual speakers and there was His Inanity talking on and on about how turning the US into the USSR is the way to defend our freedoms. Again with the desire to scream obscenities.

I came back in time to catch Senator Leahy and some Republican Senator chatting with Jim Lehrer about the wiretapping. Jim was not doing a very creditable job of challenging the Republican (I didn't catch his name), and the Repub was repeating the party line to the Nth degree, including the part about how we can't even ask questions about the wiretapping/data collection because to do so would be blabbing state secrets directly to Osama. I couldn't take it.

I wonder at what point that Senator and the Republican Party sold their soul and abandoned the very foundations of this nation?

Finally I caught Keith Olbermann on the second showing, and I thought HE and HIS guests did a very good job of articulating the problem, including the part about Bush in essence saying "Trust me," even though he has "already used up all his 'trust me' capital."

Hekate

[tulsakatz]

4. lawful govt request?

shouldn't that be awful govt request?

Seriously, it is not a LAWFUL request since it violates the constitution and numerous privacy rights!!

Has anyone noticed the way, whenever anyone talks about this, almost the first thing they say is to try to assure people that this is a legal program? That's because they KNOW it's not legal!!! If it were legal, NSA would have gone to the FISA court when Qwest questioned them!

There is a reason why there is no kind of judicial review of this program and the reason is because there is (probably) not a judge or attorney in the country who would agree that it IS legal!!

[One_Life_To_Give]

21. Why do you assume your phone conversation is private?

Just wondering having previously worked around a long distance frame room. Normal practice was to work on line quality issues while ordinary conversations were taking place over the line.

In the stack of legal documents I had to sign for that position. There was serious penalties for revealing any information I heard except for certain cases. Where there were also serious consequences for not reporting what I heard. (e.g. If overheard someone planning to fly a plane into the Capital, I was required to report that immediatly.)

They are pushing the rules these days. But I am amazed at how little people realize about what has been monitored to various degrees for a long time.

[crickets]

5. This is ridiculous

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Customers signing this type of agreement have every right to conclude that the phone company would be handing over those records in response to a lawful request by the authorities, which includes judicial oversight and a warrant. It's that probable cause thing. Signing the agreement is NOT an agreement to be wiretapped, nor is it signing away rights given to all citizens by the Constitution. Spying on US citizens is not lawful. At all. According to the Fourth Amendment it is specifically unlawful, Patriot Act and signing statements be damned.

The press is spinning for the thugs again by repeating this crap without question or debate. Way to go, brownshirts. Good Germans, all.

[annabanana]

6. It was not a "lawful request". . .

My records were divulged without a valid warrant. According to the 4th Amendment, that is illegal.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. And Bush went on t.v. and told the American people that there was

no domestic surveillance. My God. At the rate that the right-wingers are going along with this, how long before they round us up and put us against a wall and shoot us just for participating on a liberal newsgroup?

[tulsakatz]

37. yes, he clearly said that.........

....in that speech he said anytime you talk about doing a wiretap, that means you have to get a warrant.

I know Scotty tried to say that he was speaking specifically about the Patriot Act. But Bush did not say anytime you talk about getting a wiretap regarding the Patriot Act, he said ANYTIME!!! To me, that means......under ALL circumstances, including the NSA thing!!

[rodeodance]

7. for the love of god!!! This takes the cake!

[REP]

8. Here's AT&T/SBC's Fine Print

Information we disclose to third parties

As a rule, we allow customers to control the disclosure of their personal information to third parties for the marketing of third-party products and services (i.e., customer consent is required for disclosure).
We provide personal information to third parties solely in order to provide certain SBC-offered products and services. For example, we disclose certain SBC | DISH Network customers' personal information to Echostar Satellite Corporation, L.L.C. and its affiliates solely in order to provide SBC | DISH Network.
We may share necessary personal information with third parties, such as shipping companies, to complete an order.
An SBC-authorized agent may also use personal information to market and sell SBC-offered products and services.
We may, where permitted by law, provide personal information to credit bureaus, or provide information and/or sell receivables to collection agencies, to obtain payment for SBC-offered products and services.
We must disclose information, when requested, to comply with court orders or subpoenas. We will also share information when necessary to prevent unlawful use of communications services, when necessary to repair network outages, and when a customer dials 911 and information regarding their location is transmitted to a public safety agency.
Your name and number may also be transmitted and displayed on a Caller ID device unless you have elected to block such information. Please note that Caller ID Blocking does not prevent the display of your number when you dial certain business numbers, 911, 900 numbers, or toll-free 800, 888, 877 or 866 numbers.


Clearly says "court orders or subpeonas."

[knitter4democracy]

31. Still sounds illegal to me.

I can't see anything in that where it allows them to sell all the records to the feds. Grr. I'm looking into switching my service asap.

[Nay]

9. For the umteenth time, we CANNOT SIGN AWAY our Constitutional

rights. Didn't ANY of these commentators and pundits take an 8th grade civics class?????

[rodeodance]

10. here is the WP article (that Raw story got this story from)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051100539_pf.html

Data on Phone Calls Monitored
Extent of Administration's Domestic Surveillance Decried in Both Parties

By Barton Gellman and Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 12, 2006; A01

The Bush administration has secretly been collecting the domestic telephone records of millions of U.S. households and businesses, assembling gargantuan databases and attempting to sift through them for clues about terrorist threats, according to sources with knowledge of the program.

The "call detail records" enable U.S. intelligence agencies to track who calls whom, and when, but do not include the contents of conversations, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program. The companies cooperating with the National Security Agency dominate the U.S. telecommunications market and connect hundreds of billions of telephone calls each year. Intelligence analysts are seeking to mine their records to expose hidden connections and details of social networks, hoping to find signs of terrorist plots in the vast sea of innocent contacts.

Fresh disclosures yesterday in USA Today about the scale of domestic surveillance -- the most extensive yet known involving ordinary citizens and residents -- touched off a bipartisan uproar against a politically weakened President Bush. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) vowed to haul telephone companies before his committee under oath to ferret out details the Bush administration refuses to supply, and more than 50 House Democrats signed a letter demanding a criminal investigation by a special counsel.

Bush made an unscheduled appearance before White House reporters and sought to shape perceptions about the surveillance while declining to acknowledge that it is taking place. He said that "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful," but specified no source of statutory or constitutional authority. He denied forcefully that his administration is "mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," saying, "Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."

[rodeodance]

11. Bush "sought to shape perceptions" (his little 4 point Power presentation)

....Bush made an unscheduled appearance before White House reporters and sought to shape perceptions about the surveillance while declining to acknowledge that it is taking place. He said that "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful," but specified no source of statutory or constitutional authority. He denied forcefully that his administration is "mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," saying, "Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."

[Gin]

12. they got "PAID" for the information.............this was a business deal..

not for national security issues. Just another profit making scheme.

[ArmchairMeme]

23. Who Profits from this?

So our taxes are paying AT& T, Verizon and BellSouth for our government to track our phones with the concept that the government is protecting us from terrorists that they have not be able to catch for the past five years!

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Good point.

[Guaranteed]

13. Buuullllshiiiit.....ROFL

No, sir. That consent is entirely fictional, made up in your own mind.

LOL

[Roland99]

14. "protect the safety of customers, employees or property"

Something tells me that phrase was meant to protect telecom customers from things like Phone Slamming, Identity Theft, or other types of Fraud. It wasn't meant to act as a Suck The Marrow From The US Constitution Card for a spying, lying White House!

[Justice Is Comin]

15. There is not

a THING in those disclaimers that will get them off this hook. It was not adjudged legal by ANY court.

In fact, the Qwest company was told they wouldn't go to FISA because "FISA MAY NOT AGREE." Squiggle out of that one.

You got your dicks in your zipper and it's gonna be a painful process getting them out.

[cassiepriam]

16. The laws will always be on the side of the corp.

We are an oligarchy now, rule by the wealthy elite.

[Maddy McCall]

17. Bullshit.

[YankeyMCC]

18. Wrong!

The customer agreements include privacy statements - at least Verizon's and I'm sure the others as well have similar if not exact language.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2276110&mesg_id=2278090

And they can't claim section (e) - at least not successfully IMO - because all you have to say is "Ok, show me the warrant or subpoena." As soon as they say "there aren't any." section (e) no longer applies.

[yy4me]

19. I am told that in the disclaimer pamphlet with my Verizon bill

is a statement to the effect that Verizon can use my information in a way to best protect me and them. Well guys, I did not give you permission to do that and I did not sign any kind of waiver giving you the right to decide to give my phone info to the government. Just because I use your phone service, does not mean that you own my contact information. Because you put a paper in with my bill does not give you the right to spread my info around. What if I mailed you a paper stating that I can order you not to do so, would that be OK too?

[tulsakatz]

40. even if you accept that argument.......

...what right would they have to make decisions for you without asking you first?

The bottom line is..........they weren't acting in your best interest, they were acting in their own!!

[C_U_L8R]

22. It simply does not make it right

sure there may be some weasel words in the
jumble of 5-point legalese. We will not shutup
and like it... as these jerks seem to imply.

I will not give a single penny to any company
that does not respect the sanctity of my privacy.
That's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned...
and the Telcos can just deal with it

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

24. I also asked the NSA to peak in the bathroom window while I was pooping.

[tavalon]

25. Hmmm,

We're you pooping terrorists?

[genie_weenie]

26. You sure as hell can sign away your Rights

Remember the Constitution is a Living Document we have simply closed the loop on the destruction of the Constitution, it started in at least 1798 with the Alien & Sedition laws, if not 1794 with the Whiskey "Rebellion" and was mortally wounded in 1861...

[sandnsea]

36. No, not in a business contract

A business cannot create a contract that requires you to sign away your rights.

All sorts of laws can be passed, and we have to follow them until the Supreme Court overturns them or they get repealed. But that's a different thing than a company contract that requires people to sign away their rights, I don't think even this court would move away from that basic tenet.

[genie_weenie]

38. Okay, I'm tracking. n/t

[tulsakatz]

41. good point!

A business contract (it seems to me) could not supersede the constitution.........

[savemefromdumbya]

29. VERIZON didn't say that

can we take them to court over this?

people in our neighborhood are going mad about this!

[nolabels]

32. I am not no lawyer but it would seem to that any contract that........

has stipulations being able to perform illegal activities against the principles on the contract would make the contract null and void in a court of law. Surely this type of basis for operation and legality hearkens back to the time of slave trade.

This seems to me a straw man at it's dumbest level

[Bake]

34. I am a lawyer, and a contract that violates public policy

is void. Or at least voidable.

Bottom line, that little "consent" clause does not, and cannot grant consent to an unlawful request; because by definition an unlawful request would be contrary to public policy and therefore void.

My head is spinning ...

Bake, Esq.

[tulsakatz]

42. so if the companies did violate constitutional rights,

does that mean the customers of those companies can claim damages? Or possibly get money back for the charges they paid to those companies?

If so, I believe there will be massive lawsuits!!! They may not be able to sue the govt but it seems to me, they could sue the companies who provided their personal info to the govt.......

[stepnw1f]

33. Oh.... OKAY.... duhhhhhh.... (nt)

[warrens]

35. This ain't gonna work

It's not a lawful request, and the request, even if lawful, did not specify a person or crime. Lawyers can and do say anything, and most of it is total garbage.

[mom cat]

39. I never signed a contract with them!