Telcos: Fine Print on Service Agreement Gives Consent to Turn Over Records

[paparush]

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

<snip>
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."

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

[HereSince1628]

1. Of course the telcos have a universal clause that allows them to

comply with legal gov't requests. They do get subpoened to turn over records for criminal investigations all the time.

But that clause is NOT persmission for the feds to buy these records and to trash the 4th amendment.

[leveymg]

2. Won't wash - unwarranted wiretaps are a violation of federal law.

QWest was the only telco which pushed for a subpoena, warrant, or letter signed by the AJ. When one wasn't provided, they refused to turn over the data. The rest of the companies that turned over records without a legal order are red meat for law suits and potential prosecution.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Everyone normally assumes: if probable cause has been shown to a Judge

and a warrant issued, the subject of that warrant will have their records handed over to the police. But this case is not like that. There is no requirement by law (Qwest has not been prosecuted for not complying) there was NO LEGAL PROCESS, and as for exigent circumstances, that MIGHT be an effective legal shield had the Gov't marched into Verizon's corporate offices and said: turn it all over to us or we'll shut your network down, tomorrow. But they didn't. A request is not an exigent circumstance, it is not something that compels an action from a person or company regardless of their will. As already instanced, Qwest denied this illegal request and Qwest are still alive to tell the tale, which makes "exigent circumstances" a rather hollow term to be filled up with whatever Verizon likes at the moment.

"Because they asked us nicely for the information and paid us" is not an exigent circumstance.

[Laha]

4. Exigent Circumstances

Okay, do they know something I don't?

Dictionary.com : ex·i·gent adj.

1. Requiring immediate action or remedy. See Synonyms at urgent.
2. Requiring much effort or expense; demanding.

Merriam - Webster : exigent
Pronunciation: 'ek-s&-j&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin exigent-, exigens, present participle of exigere to demand -- more at EXACT
1 : requiring immediate aid or action
2 : requiring or calling for much : DEMANDING

Verizon will disclose confidential records, it says, "as required by law, legal process, or exigent circumstances."

If the release of information is not valid by and apparently breaks law, and legal process, how the heck does an arbitrarily defined 'demanding circumstance' suddenly make this legal? Does simply using an obscure word make handing out the private information okay?

Sounds like a load of something brown and smelly.


Edited for clarity.

[NJCher]

5. how pathetic

They are depending on the fine print of a telco bill to go up against the grand document that is the constitution. Says everything about these small minds.




Cher