• Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
rated:
This is just a questions - If the Government is receiving customer data from Verizon (see article below), isn't that a contract violation and doesn't that qualify you to drop/cancel a Verizon contract?

Report: Gov't secretly collects phone info
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/us-govt-secretly-collecting-d...

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts

hambirg (Jun. 12, 2013 @ 12:14p) |

Given his recent track record, I doubt Verizon is too concerned:

"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook... (more)

cestmoi123 (Jun. 12, 2013 @ 4:31p) |

To help you play catch-up the revelations are about the NSA not the FBI/ATF/SS/etc. The NSA is not last I checked a U.S... (more)

secstate (Jun. 14, 2013 @ 8:25p) |

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Which provisions of the Verizon contract do you think are being violated by this court order?

singh said:    isn't that a contract violation and doesn't that qualify you to drop/cancel a Verizon contract?



If you're giving them a reason to eavesdrop...you probably have more than getting out of a simple Verizon contract to worry about.

respdoc said:   

If you're giving them a reason to eavesdrop...you probably have more than getting out of a simple Verizon contract to worry about.


If you actually read the article you would have seen that one, it was not eavesdropping (listening in on calls) but rather the data collection about calls (number called, call duration, location, etc) and two it appears to have been indiscriminate at least within Verizon Business services (i.e., just using the service and calling internationally appears to have been enough to be ensnared in the request). That said while this appears to be another sad example of our government going overboard "to protect our security"I agree with Chuckster's point that it is not clear, given that it was a court order what contract term would have been violated. Also,according to the article only Verizon Business Services are confirmed impacted so if you don't have a contract with them you got even less of a leg to stand on.

secstate said:    That said while this appears to be another sad example of our government going overboard "to protect our security"

As does your comment seem to be another sad example of unfounded paranoia. If someone is collecting phone numbers dialed (and if they are going to that length, they are probably also trying to intercept things like text messages)...it's a form of eavesdropping.

As this is a deal discussion forum and not a political forum...we'll leave it at that.

Original comment stands.

It all starts with people with attitudes like yours! If you completely trust your Government then this wouldn't be an issue but they have demonstrated over and over their willingness to abuse the authority and use the collected data for purposed that it was never intended for. After a while all of your liberties will be compromised if you let them get away with the smallest of abuses!


respdoc said:   secstate said:    That said while this appears to be another sad example of our government going overboard "to protect our security"

As does your comment seem to be another sad example of unfounded paranoia. If someone is collecting phone numbers dialed (and if they are going to that length, they are probably also trying to intercept things like text messages)...it's a form of eavesdropping.

As this is a deal discussion forum and not a political forum...we'll leave it at that.

Original comment stands.

dirtrat said:   It all starts with people with attitudes like yours! If you completely trust your Government then this wouldn't be an issue but they have demonstrated over and over their willingness to abuse the authority and use the collected data for purposed that it was never intended for. After a while all of your liberties will be compromised if you let them get away with the smallest of abuses!



I should have known that would have brought out the tin-foil hat club. Thank you for taking time to leave your bunker to post.

The Patriot act makes them able to do this. Verizon is the only one that was accidentally uncovered. I bet you a taco it's this info is requested from all service providers. Get a CB radio folks! 10-4 ?

So to close the thread: No, it's not possible to get out of a Verizon contract for this.
Right?

respdoc said:   secstate said:    That said while this appears to be another sad example of our government going overboard "to protect our security"

As does your comment seem to be another sad example of unfounded paranoia. If someone is collecting phone numbers dialed (and if they are going to that length, they are probably also trying to intercept things like text messages)...it's a form of eavesdropping.

As this is a deal discussion forum and not a political forum...we'll leave it at that.

Original comment stands.


Wait so I am the paranoid one because I pointed out that they were only intercepting call metadata (aka pen/trap taps) rather than the actual communication contents (wire taps) which is what you stated and yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article? Interesting way to look at it. Collecting the communication metadata is less invasive in my opinion to privacy than intercepting the communication contents which is what you are suggesting so I don't see how I am more paranoid than you. That said I agree lets just agree to disagree on this point and not derail OP's thread.

secstate said:   

Wait so I am the paranoid one because I pointed out that they were only intercepting call metadata (aka pen/trap taps) rather than the actual communication contents (wire taps) which is what you stated and yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article? Interesting way to look at it. Collecting the communication metadata is less invasive in my opinion to privacy than intercepting the communication contents which is what you are suggesting so I don't see how I am more paranoid than you. That said I agree lets just agree to disagree on this point and not derail OP's thread.


No clue what you're babbling about as it was you that started the gibberish dialog about "overboard government security."

They collect data (in whatever data form is necessary) to catch "the bad guys." If that power is ever abused, it should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Unlike what your doomsday friends tell you...a few bad apples doesn't mean the whole system is at fault.

respdoc said:   
No clue what you're babbling about...


Or me you.

singh said:   This is just a questions - If the Government is receiving customer data from Verizon (see article below), isn't that a contract violation and doesn't that qualify you to drop/cancel a Verizon contract?

Report: Gov't secretly collects phone info
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/us-govt-secretly-collecting-d...


Dunno. Does the contract state that they will not provide any of your data to third parties?

Hello, they can hear you now !

While you are at it you might want to cancel any contracts you have with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-min... .

secstate said:   While you are at it you might want to cancel any contracts you have with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-min... .

I was going to post the same thing. It just keeps getting worse.

respdoc said:   No clue what you're babbling about as it was you that started the gibberish dialog about "overboard government security."

They collect data (in whatever data form is necessary) to catch "the bad guys." If that power is ever abused, it should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Unlike what your doomsday friends tell you...a few bad apples doesn't mean the whole system is at fault.


I am far from a tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist, but what I am is a student of history. You do realize that history has repeatedly proven that "the bad guys" is an extremely subjective term, right?

hambirg said:   secstate said:   While you are at it you might want to cancel any contracts you have with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-min... .

I was going to post the same thing. It just keeps getting worse.

respdoc said:   No clue what you're babbling about as it was you that started the gibberish dialog about "overboard government security."

They collect data (in whatever data form is necessary) to catch "the bad guys." If that power is ever abused, it should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Unlike what your doomsday friends tell you...a few bad apples doesn't mean the whole system is at fault.


I am far from a tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist, but what I am is a student of history. You do realize that history has repeatedly proven that "the bad guys" is an extremely subjective term, right?


I agree. While we need to catch the bad guys, we also need to have a checks & balance on the powers of random monitoring.

That is why a court order for probable cause used to be required.

SteveG

hambirg said:   secstate said:   While you are at it you might want to cancel any contracts you have with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, etc.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-min... .

I was going to post the same thing. It just keeps getting worse.

respdoc said:   No clue what you're babbling about as it was you that started the gibberish dialog about "overboard government security."

They collect data (in whatever data form is necessary) to catch "the bad guys." If that power is ever abused, it should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Unlike what your doomsday friends tell you...a few bad apples doesn't mean the whole system is at fault.


I am far from a tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist, but what I am is a student of history. You do realize that history has repeatedly proven that "the bad guys" is an extremely subjective term, right?



Quite comical trying to pretend you're not part of the tin foil hat club but put: "it's just keeps getting worse."

Sorry if you have no clue what year it is..but here in the digital age..different tools are needed to catch those bad guys since the "baddies" are on a global scale. It though doesn't matter what year it is if the power is abused. Your "history studies" should have taught you swift and decisive legal punishment is the correct course of action for that.


Logic, my friend...compared to unfounded paranoia of the invisible boogie men..will be your best option every time.

respdoc said:   


Quite comical trying to pretend you're not part of the tin foil hat club but put: "it's just keeps getting worse."

Sorry if you have no clue what year it is..but here in the digital age..different tools are needed to catch those bad guys since the "baddies" are on a global scale. It though doesn't matter what year it is if the power is abused. Your "history studies" should have taught you swift and decisive legal punishment is the correct course of action for that.


Logic, my friend...compared to unfounded paranoia of the invisible boogie men..will be your best option every time.


Your arguments would hold a lot more water if you did not call folks names or assign them labels based on a single posting. I can see where reasonable people might have a differing view on all this. But calling names doesn't help but rather indicates you cannot make a cogent argument for your position. Also so far no evidence has been presented that this information has lead to any net gain (and it is likely going to harm the US companies at the center of it, at least outside the U.S. and U.K.). They might be legally protected here but not so much overseas. If you will recall 9/11 the intelligence failure was not a lack of information but rather a failure to act on the available information. Collecting more information does not solve that problem, but rather makes it worse.

respdoc said:   Quite comical trying to pretend you're not part of the tin foil hat club but put: "it's just keeps getting worse."

Sorry if you have no clue what year it is..but here in the digital age..different tools are needed to catch those bad guys since the "baddies" are on a global scale. It though doesn't matter what year it is if the power is abused. Your "history studies" should have taught you swift and decisive legal punishment is the correct course of action for that.


Logic, my friend...compared to unfounded paranoia of the invisible boogie men..will be your best option every time.



"blah, blah, blah. . .:adhominemattack: blah, blah, blah. . . .LOGIC"

I was going to respond, but I'm still laughing.

Shill away, humor is good.

hambirg said:   

"blah, blah, blah. . .:adhominemattack: blah, blah, blah. . . .LOGIC"

I was going to respond, but I'm still laughing.

Shill away, humor is good.


Better be careful, "they" could be tracking you right now. Hope that sand is soft.

If you are weird enough and go into a store everyday and ask about this specific policy and the government and list all of your conspiracy theories, I would think you might have a chance of getting out of the contract as they would probably see you as nuts and want you to go away

StevenColorado said:   singh said:   This is just a questions - If the Government is receiving customer data from Verizon (see article below), isn't that a contract violation and doesn't that qualify you to drop/cancel a Verizon contract?

Report: Gov't secretly collects phone info
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/us-govt-secretly-collecting-d...


Dunno. Does the contract state that they will not provide any of your data to third parties?


Most of those contracts tend to have a a clause in there for sharing with law enforcement/government.

respdoc said:   
Better be careful, "they" could be tracking you right now. Hope that sand is soft.


If you can read, "they" would be the NSA. And it's not a question of "could be" they are. . .me, you, everyone. The super secretive, FISA, has granted the NSA what are called "general writs of assistance warrants."

Pay attention, this is where that history part comes in.

You see, in 1760, Great Britain began granting these general writs of assistance, to protect from "the bad guys." They did not have to show specific probable cause. So, British customs officials could just show up at your home or business and rifle through all your stuff.

Well, the fine people of Boston didn't like that much. And they started challenging these general writs of assistance. Crazy, I know! One of these tin foil hat wearing guys even resisted an execution of one of these general warrants on his ship. His name was John Hancock. Maybe you've heard of him. These crazy conspiracy nuts argued that these warrants were illegal based upon the Magna Carta. Some whackadoo named John Adams was present for these arguments, because he actually believed in their validity. Eventually, this issue of general writs of assistance became one of the major factors in a little spat called the American Revolution.

After these crazy colonists defeated the British, who were only trying to protect them from "the bad guys", John Hancock and John Adams got together with some of their buddies and wrote up a little piece of paper called the United States Constitution. They were still a little peeved about these general writs of assistance warrants, so they included a clause that made them illegal. They called it the Fourth Amendment. A lot of other colonists were still peeved about these general warrants too. So, when they wrote up their state constitutions they included a particularity requirement to warrants. It means that the target of a search warrant must be "particularly" described in detail.

In 1868 the federal government adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. They must have still been pissed about that whole general warrant issue too, because they included a due process clause. It acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government and essentially reaffirmed the illegality of general writs of assistance warrants. What were they thinking?!

I know this is all ancient history to you, but we are coming up on a national holiday on July 4th. It's often referred to as Independence Day. It's where American citizens all over the nation get together with friends and family and usually bb-q up some burgers and raise a beer or two to those crazy, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorists of 1760 that we call patriots.

You really should have paid more attention during high school history class.

hambirg said:   

If you can read, "they" would be the NSA. And it's not a question of "could be" they are. . .me, you, everyone. The super secretive, FISA, has granted the NSA what are called "general writs of assistance warrants."



Thank you for proving my point on multiple levels, my paranoid little friend. Problem is...and unlike what you'd like to believe...you're life really isn't that interesting for them to even notice. I know your fantasy is to be a real-life star of a "Conspiracy Theory" movie plot..but I don't think ranting about some history facts you found in a google search is going to get you qualified. Better luck next time.

respdoc said:   

Thank you for proving my point on multiple levels, my paranoid little friend.


Interestingly the argument could be made that you are the paranoid one because you believe such invasive surveillance is required to save us from the "big, bad, scary terrorists". The number of Americans killed by terrorists is vastly less in any given year than those killed by their fellow American's in traffic accidents. Take 2001 for example 42,196 people were killed on U.S. roads while 2,977 were killed in terrorist acts (9/11). For every other year the numbers are even more divergent (terrorism has caused 20-30 US fatalities on average annually). If terrorists (which all this surveillance is for, at least in theory, and I honestly believe probably in practice at this time) are an existential threat to the U.S., I don't want to know what U.S. drivers are. One wonders how many more Americans would be alive today if the U.S. government declared a war on traffic fatalities, homicides and/or cancer and spent the money there rather than worrying about terrorists. No group of which in modern times has lasted more than a few decades or ever reached their stated goals (Red Brigades, Red Army Factions, IRA, ETA, etc..).

And before you say I am soft on terrorists my father was a foreign service officer and my mother is English, and I lived in an visited Europe throughout the 1970s and 1980s when terrorism was a big deal. Our house in Germany had an anti-terrorist squad call system because of the threat of the German Red Army factions to U.S. Diplomats in the late 1970s (house was isolated and had no security presence either US or German). I remember my mother explaining to me how to use the system in the event we were attacked (I was 9 at the time). I lived and visited the UK many times while IRA bomb attacks were going on. One of my English uncles narrowly missed being injured or killed by an IRA bomb outside his office building because he was 10 mins late for work that day. I don't under estimate the risk of terrorism but I know I am much more likely to be killed driving my car than in a terrorist act. It is all about putting risk into perspective which we humans are very bad at. I think we should aggressively go after terrorists but not at the risk of abdicating our freedoms.

secstate said:   
Interestingly the argument could be made that you are the paranoid one because you believe such invasive surveillance is required to save us from the "big, bad, scary terrorists".


I'm not too sure if you have trouble following along or not. Given you seem to write a lot in hopes of making it seem like you have points but really only produce little in the way of substance..adds to that possibility.

To play catch-up with you. Any type of electronic/phone monitoring is a legal/law enforcement tool. This tool (just like the use of deadly force, search and seizure, etc) needs to be used only when absolutely necessary , highly regulated and with strong legal ramifications/punishments for any infarctions or improper use. It has always (and always will be) a trade-off in personal freedoms vs. societies protection. This even becomes more of dilemma with the age of instant information. That's modern life though. If you don't like it..find a time machine and beam yourself back to the unsettled wild west.

We as consumers have all the power. If you do not want something, do your homework and do then choose not to buy. I too am upset about how much data is collected about me but we are in a new era and thus have to adjust.

Verizon privacy policy and third parties.
http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/policy/#wireinfo

We may disclose information that individually identifies our customers or identifies customer devices in certain circumstances, such as:

to comply with valid legal process including subpoenas, court orders or search warrants, and as otherwise authorized by law;
in cases involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person or other emergencies;
to protect our rights or property, or the safety of our customers or employees;
to protect against fraudulent, malicious, abusive, unauthorized or unlawful use of or subscription to our products and services and to protect our network, services, devices and users from such use;
to advance or defend against complaints or legal claims in court, administrative proceedings and elsewhere;
to credit bureaus or collection agencies for reporting purposes or to obtain payment for Verizon-billed products and services;
to a third-party that you have authorized to verify your account information;
to outside auditors and regulators; or
with your consent.

IslandDad said:   We as consumers have all the power. If you do not want something, do your homework and do then choose not to buy. I too am upset about how much data is collected about me but we are in a new era and thus have to adjust.

Verizon privacy policy and third parties.
http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/policy/#wireinfo

We may disclose information that individually identifies our customers or identifies customer devices in certain circumstances, such as:

to comply with valid legal process including subpoenas, court orders or search warrants, and as otherwise authorized by law;


And that pretty much sums it up. Absent a court ruling or legislation barring FISA warrants, they're legal, so VZ can respond.


hambirg said:   Ruh roh. . .

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/06/11/nine-com...


Given his recent track record, I doubt Verizon is too concerned:

"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages. Facebook representatives responded that the suit was "without merit." In December 2012, the district court dismissed the complaint on 47 U.S.C. 230 grounds.
Also in 2011, Klayman represented Joseph Farah in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine. In July 2011, Klayman represented Bradlee Dean in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow; Dean was eventually ordered to pay defendants' legal fees that totalled nearly $25,000.
In 2012, Klayman filed on behalf of a Florida resident an unsuccessful challenge to Barack Obama's placement on the primary ballot and claimed that the latter is not a natural-born citizen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman

respdoc said:   

To play catch-up with you. Any type of electronic/phone monitoring is a legal/law enforcement tool.


To help you play catch-up the revelations are about the NSA not the FBI/ATF/SS/etc. The NSA is not last I checked a U.S. law enforcement entity. If you are going to try to act smart at least get your terms right. And I never said the current situation was illegal because although I am not a lawyer it seems it is perfectly legal (just because it is legal doesn't make all of it a good idea though).



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014