Did Vonage give NSA our phone records?

Posts: 476 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:14 am Post subject:

kamnet wrote:

The question should not be whether or not I have something to hide, but whether the government has a valid reason to invade my right to privacy. If the government believes that I truly am a terrorist, the law does give them the right to follow up on that and see. But going to a phone company and asking them to be able to snoop on everybody WITHOUT an order from a judge? That's not investigating whether a few people are terrorists, that is what they call "fishing for evidence", and it is illegal.

Silly me, I demand that the government follows the laws that it creates, both in spirit and in body, rather than try to find ways to evade the laws it creates.

No laws were broken and the phone records were stripped of any individually identifiable data. Also, the phone companies were providing the data voluntarily. You guys are getting all excited about something that's not happening.

Posts: 476

bigmacnc wrote:

Another thing that is scary is a military person heading any civilian agency because if ordered to present false information, a military person has to honor the order or face severe consequences.

I just noticed this and I wanted to point out that it is complete and utter BS. There are provisions in the UCMJ that preclude soldiers from following unlawful orders. In fact, a soldier would be in more trouble if they followed any unlawful order than if they refused to do so.

Posts: 32 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 08, 2006 Posts: 32

Vonage wasn't asked for any customer info by NSA.

NSA only asked the traditional telcos.

Good to know however that in light of what happened Vonage has come out saying they won't give without court order.

These telcos who turned over their customer phone records to NSA will be facing class action lawsuits.

For every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees.

It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly 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. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The telcos might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

The phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order.

If you have a class action involving 10 million Americans, that’s 10 million times $1,000 — that’s 10 Billion.

Posts: 229 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:57 am Post subject:

blakadher wrote:

No laws were broken and the phone records were stripped of any individually identifiable data. Also, the phone companies were providing the data voluntarily. You guys are getting all excited about something that's not happening.

It doesn't matter if it was stripped of individually identifiable data or not. That is still *MY DATA*.

It's a shame that the companies were providing the data volluntairly. They lose my trust as a customer. But NSA still had no business asking for it. As I said, I guess I'm just silly for expecting that my government uphold the SPIRIT of the laws that they create. The law says that the government gets no data without a court order. That doesn't make it acceptable to just go poking around and see who will give it up voluntairly.

Posts: 229 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:59 am Post subject:

oz_80 wrote:

These telcos who turned over their customer phone records to NSA will be facing class action lawsuits.

The feds have already injected itself into three such lawsuits, asking the courts to squash them because they may involve items which pertain to "national secrets".

Posts: 476 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:00 am Post subject:

oz_80 wrote:

Vonage wasn't asked for any customer info by NSA.

NSA only asked the traditional telcos.

Good to know however that in light of what happened Vonage has come out saying they won't give without court order.

These telcos who turned over their customer phone records to NSA will be facing class action lawsuits.

For every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees.

It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly 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. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The telcos might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

The phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order.

If you have a class action involving 10 million Americans, that’s 10 million times $1,000 — that’s 10 Billion.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the telcos) all of that is moot because the information they gave the NSA did not contain any individually identifiable data and was therefore completely within the law. The information had been anonymized, as reported by USA Today (but that little tidbit is often ignored by the fear mongers).

Posts: 32 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 08, 2006 Posts: 32

blakadher wrote:

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the telcos) all of that is moot because the information they gave the NSA did not contain any individually identifiable data and was therefore completely within the law. The information had been anonymized, as reported by USA Today (but that little tidbit is often ignored by the fear mongers).

Are you sure this is a fact ?

I know that's what they're saying "information being anonymized".

But I'm not so sure we have all the facts.

For 10 billion dollars, I don't think we'll have shortage of lawyers willing to take this on.

Posts: 63 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 63

Normally I want as little government intervention in my life as possible, straight down the line, but when it comes to protecting me from terrorists and their ilk, I expect them to use every tool they have.

If they want to monitor who is calling who, thats just fine with me. If John Doe in the good ole USA is getting, or placing 30 calls a week to Achmed, (fictional known terrorist) in Pakistan... Dammit, I want someone to check into it and see what the hell they are talking about!

I struggle with this quote all the time...

Quote:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin

Mr. Franklin could not have imagined what we are facing today. I think, were he alive, he might adjust his thinking just a little bit!

Note to all you conspiracy theorist who think the government was behind 9-11... Censors would delete what I have to say to you! Why don't you turn up Art Bell or George Noory and get your fix on the Remote Viewers and the Aliens that are making regular visits to our planet. Maybe when you board the mother ship someday, you will be enlightened! Sorry you missed the last one when the Heavens Gate folks jumped on board. (I wonder if they somehow directed the planes into the buildings?)

To NavyDavy and all the others here who have served, and are serving our country... Thank you! Don't let these nut cases get you down! They are in the minority!

Posts: 476 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject:

kamnet wrote:

It doesn't matter if it was stripped of individually identifiable data or not. That is still *MY DATA*.

It doesn't matter in your eyes, but in the eyes of the law it most certainly does matter.

kamnet wrote:

It's a shame that the companies were providing the data volluntairly. They lose my trust as a customer. But NSA still had no business asking for it. As I said, I guess I'm just silly for expecting that my government uphold the SPIRIT of the laws that they create. The law says that the government gets no data without a court order. That doesn't make it acceptable to just go poking around and see who will give it up voluntairly.

The Telecommunications Act of 1934 (amended) prohibits the release of individually identifiable information unless obtained by warrant. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 explicitly permits telecommunications companies to provide customer records to the government if the government asks for them. You'll notice both of those are pre-9/11 and in keeping with the spirit of the laws. Not to mention it is the Supreme Court's purview to ensure that the Executive branch is in keeping with the spirit of the law. All of the checks and balances of our government are set up the way they are for a reason.

Posts: 229 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject:

mbkerk wrote:

Normally I want as little government intervention in my life as possible, straight down the line, but when it comes to protecting me from terrorists and their ilk, I expect them to use every tool they have.

If they want to monitor who is calling who, thats just fine with me. If John Doe in the good ole USA is getting, or placing 30 calls a week to Achmed, (fictional known terrorist) in Pakistan... Dammit, I want someone to check into it and see what the hell they are talking about!

And if the government has information from outside these telephone logs that John Doe and Achmed are talking a lot, and they have other evidence which suggests that one or the other may be involved in terrorism, then it is VERY EASY for them to take this information and obtain a wiretap for further investigation.

But just because John and Achmed call each other all the time, that's not proof that they are terrorist. That's only proof that a) they like to talk a lot and b) they've got the money to spend on international calls. Neither one is a crime.

Quote:

I struggle with this quote all the time...

Quote:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin

Mr. Franklin could not have imagined what we are facing today. I think, were he alive, he might adjust his thinking just a little bit!

I think you forget that Mr. Franklin was quite alive before, during and after the American Revolutionary War. He lived in a time and age not of terrorist attacks, but when the enemy embedded their own troops RIGHT IN OUR HOMES and demanded that we feed, clothe and shelter them. No secret or any sort of private information of any kind could be kept reasonably kept because there were the eyes and ears of the British government around all the time.

The security was there, but few individuals I'm sure felt very secure when it's living off of your family like a parasite. I'm quite sure that part of the inspiration for this quite came from this. I'm also sure that a large part of the inspiration of this quote came from the fact that too many individuals are too apathetic to what the government is or is not doing.