SIVACRACY.NET

Since when does one become a "goon" by defending oneself on Constitutional grounds? Argumentatum ad hominem perhaps?.

I consider myself a privacy advocate and a staunch supporter of the fourth amendment. I also believe that both the government and the telecoms behaved badly. I have to admit that I have more trouble with the government's actions than the telecoms. Telecoms will come and telecoms will go but we will be stuck with a badly behaving government. I might add that government will only behave worse unless people start suing it with more frequency than those brainless, amoral corporations.

Having made those clarifications I believe that Verizon has a valid point when it says "the proper remedy 'is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker's right to communicate." ... yes, let's do something about the government.

Wow, that is just about the most pathetic legal argument I've ever heard. Anybody know the case number? I'd like to check out that motion.

And Jardinero1, no, that's not an ad hominem argument, wiseguy. Look it up.

I was unaware of the fact that I was making a legal argument. I think you should read again because you missed my point. What is being done about government snooping? Especially, warrantless snooping like this? How will this case stop the government? I don't think it will. In fact, my worry is that EFF will prevail, everyone will cheer "Hooray for our side!" and go home. Then the feds will go right back to business as usual.

This ATT Case is merely the latest incident in a breakdown of our Fourth Amendment rights that began back in the seventies. In the financial services industry, under the rubric of the Bank Secrecy Act, the government has engaged, with impunity, in this kind of warrantless snooping for years. Employees of the banking, brokerage and credit card industries are required to divulge customer info on request. Did you know that? We are further required to watch our customers and file Suspicous Activity Reports(SAR's) on any and all "red flag" behaviors we witness. Did you know that? I would point out that "red flag" is not and should not be confused with illegal behavior. "Red flag" behaviors are actually completely legal and they transcend the obvious, like hauling suitcases full of money or bearer bonds to the branch. "Red flag" behaviors encompass many, many perfectly legal and innocuous behaviors that you may engage in every day of the week. You might have already a whole stack of SAR's sitting in the FINCEN's offices. Your financial records might be surveilled as we speak. Furthermore, you are not allowed to know this is happening. Did you know that?

If the actions of ATT and Verizon raise your ire then the actions of your bank, brokerage, insurance company and credit card company ought to raise your ire twenty fold. I suppose the EFF could sue them too. But, the feds are the instigators of this travesty, what are we going to do about that?

Jardinero1, the pathetic legal argument I was talking about was the legal argument made by Verizon.

The points you raise are very interesting, thank you, but they have nothing to do with how pathetic a legal argument Verizon's lawyers are making.

Sorry, that was vain of me.

when one READS the constitution, including the bill of rights amendments, is there any mention of them being absolute? The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE includes the words" governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever a government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." Sounds like the private sector wants rights that WE THE PEOPLE do not have. Maybe all the villians should alter their abuses or we can throw the whole bunch out! A bad government is OUR fault. We have little say in corporate decisions and should be extremely watchfull of them also!