I offer this.
http://tinyurl.com/3xc5o5
Suggesting, if the numbers are accurate, that .0078 of the responses
for data were without court order or subpoena in advance, which is
the normal procedure.
Whether this was in response to a National Security Letter or not is
unspecified. What is clear is that, assuming the source is accurate,
the apparent violations of normal practice may have occurred on
a small scale.
I don't know what constitutes an "Emergency" request, and I don't
know whether appropriate documentation was secured ex post facto.
This article caused a great deal of consternation in some circles.
Some of it is slanted. We actually don't keep some of the data that
was apparently requested.
"It's rare in these situations where there's agreement between the
plaintiffs and the >defendants -- that there are plenty of protections for
telecommunications providers >in the existing laws," said the EFF's Opsahl,
adding that no new immunity is >necessary. "It appears that we both agree
that the court should be able to look at >the full situation, despite the
state-secrets privilege."
The fact that Verizon and AT&T sent the letters in the first place seems
to argue that the telcos believed they were acting in good faith and within
the law.
But I agree that "just following orders" is not an excuse.
So you have my permission to take me out and shoot me, .0078 is
.0078 too much, and as long as I take their gold I am responsible.
I still don't buy the USA Today article, though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Rigby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Telephone companies and privacy
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
It's easy to suggest impropriety. I think the burden of proof
is yours, sir.
I offer this.
http://tinyurl.com/3xc5o5
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC
http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==
* Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name
* Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
* Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l
* List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
* RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml
* Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived
************************************************************************
