Verizon Claims Free Speech Over NSA Wiretapping 391
xvx writes "Verizon is claiming that they have the right to hand over customer information to the US government under the First Amendment. 'Essentially, the argument is that turning over truthful information to the government is free speech, and the EFF and ACLU can't do anything about it. In fact, Verizon basically argues that the entire lawsuit is a giant SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, and that the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.'"
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:4, Informative)
Chris Mattern
Oh, so we're talking amendments? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:4, Informative)
"iologically speaking, you are correct, however I thought US law effectively made a corporate entity a "person" with said rights."
Nope. Corporations can't vote, hold office, etc. They can't even sign agreements (only authorized representatives - REAL people - can sign, and they need to be authorized by other REAL people (sorry for the caps :-); if its a high-enough level, then it needs to be a board meeting that grants the authorization).
As I was reading this... (Score:1, Informative)
Dear Valued Customer:
As Verizon Wireless and its affiliates (the "Verizon Companies") provide services to you, we may each collect certain information that is made available to us solely by virtue of our relationship with you, such as quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location and amount of use of the telecommunications services you purchase. This information and related billing information is known as Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI"). The Federal Communications Commission and other regulators require the Verizon Companies to protect your CPNI.
In order to better serve your communications needs and to provide products and services to meet your requirements, we need your permission to share this information among our affiliates, agents, and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries. The protection of your information is important to us, and the Verizon Companies acknowledge that you have a right, and we have a duty, under federal and state law, to protect the confidentiality of your CPNI.
You have a right to keep your CPNI private by "opting out." Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 45 days from the date of this letter, we will assume that you give the Verizon Companies the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies as described above. You may opt out by calling us at 1-800-372-5750 and following the recorded directions. Please make sure you have your CPNI ID and password available. These can be found in the box below:
CPNI ID: XXXXXXXXXX
Password: XXXXXXXXXX
TTY users can opt out by first dialing a telecommunications relay service (TRS) center via 711 in order to contact a TRS Communications Assistant (CA). Then simply ask the CA to dial 1-800-372-5750 and notify us that you wish to opt out.
Please be advised that you can disapprove of the uses of CPNI and deny or withdraw access to CPNI at any time. Your consent will remain valid until we receive your notice withdrawing it. You may withdraw such consent by faxing us at 1-866-745-4661 or emailing us at cpni-notices@verizonwireless.com. [mailto]
Furthermore, note that opting out will not affect the status of the services you currently have with the Verizon Companies. In addition, we can disclose your CPNI to comply with any laws, your contract, or with a court order or subpoena.
For more information, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions listed below or visit verizonwireless.com/cpni. [verizonwireless.com]
Thank you,
Verizon Wireless
Frequently Asked Questions about CPNI OPT-OUT
What is CPNI?
Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) is information created by virtue of the relationship between a carrier and a customer, including the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a customer's telecommunications services purchased (including specific calls a customer makes and receives) and related local and toll billing information. It does not include published information such as one's name, address or telephone number.
Why does Verizon Wireless need my consent?
Verizon Wireless needs to share your CPNI with our affiliates, agents and parent companies in order to better provide to you the full range of the Verizon Companies' communication related products and services. The Federal Communications Commission requires that we obtain your consent to do so.
If I give consent, what can Verizon Wireless do with my information?
With your consent, Verizon Wireless will be able to share your CPNI with our affiliates, agents and parent companies. Sharing such information will enable us to collaborate on how to better serve your telecommunications needs.
Can I change my mind about giving consent?
A customer has the righ
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:3, Informative)
Check this as a starting point for more info: Corporate Personhood [wikipedia.org]
Corporations are people, that's the problem... (Score:4, Informative)
This has all sorts of very negative implications with regard to attempting to regulate business. Many people feel that it make the individuals second-class citizens in the eyes of the law -- and there's some really good arguments to that effect. Your "free speech" rights probably end at your employer's door, and if you sue you have to pay for your lawyers while for a company it's a tax-deductible expense (e.g., it's effectively subsidized by the government).
Verizon's blowing proverbial smoke through it's corporate anus here, though. Free speech is a poor argument in this case. First, not all speech is "free speech" and violating the reasonable confidence of a client would not be considered free speech. Factual or not, the information is of a personal nature and the individual would have a reasonable cause to believe it to remain private. It's no more free speech than if a lawyer violated the attorney-client privilege, of a psychologist had done the same.
Further, in Verizon's case, the "speech" consitutes aiding and abetting a criminal act: the government's violation of the 4th ammendment rights of Verizon's customers. While the government was engaged in the criminal activity, they could not have done so without the complicity of the company, who thus became an accessory to the crime.
George Bush famously said "there ought to be limits to free speech," and there are -- this is one such case. You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't spread viscous rumors to torpedo someone's career, you can't talk about magic numbers that can be used to access digital media (OK, that's just stupid), and you can't provide sensitive information to the government that the explicitly requires them to obtain only with a court order after presenting a reasonable cause that an individual might be involved in criminal activity.
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:4, Informative)
Under the current law governing corporations, I think Mr. Verizon's legal claim stands. Go figure...
[1] That documentary is a must see...
Bad idea verizon, bad reporting /. (Score:2, Informative)
After all, there is a big difference between what is legal and what is ethical.
There is no compromise here. Free speech is about EXPRESSION, not CONTENT. You do not have the right to express any CONTENT you wish. In this case, our privacy and right against unreasonable search is protected by law, and the CONTENT protected by those laws may not be EXPRESSED without permission, in the exact same way that your photo may not be published without your permission.
So either the first amendment will now be weakened by the precedent, hamstringing companies about how they may internally use consumer data (or even if they may retain it beyond the billing cycle), or an unjust ruling will weaken the fourth amendment. Way to go Verizon legal team!
I'm betting on the fourth amendment this time. Clever lawyers are killing their own companies. They should consider the stakes before raising such arguments. Discretion is everything in law.
On a lesser note, shame on Slashdot for reporting that Verizon's delivering call logs to the NSA is anything but data, used to corroborate and mine the substantive assets of NSA wiretapping of our communications grid that has gone on since at least the Nixon administration.
Editors, if you have a problem with the NSA, criticize the NSA for "wiretapping," not Verizon. Verizon is delivering *consumer data*, not the contents or verbiage of phone calls. It is not "wiretapping," it is data mining. Data mining is bad enough, but please be accurate because this is not entertainment news. This is really quite important.
--
Toro
Nothing to See Here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:3, Informative)
I am sorry to say that corporations [wikipedia.org] [1] are people... Not only that, but their only duty as "legal persons" is to profit, no matter what.
The duty of an FPC is to deliver to its shareholders, what their S1 (and any other relevant filings) have promised. In most cases, this includes increasing profits. In some cases it does not. In all cases, it also includes many other things. For example, people often cite Google's famous "don't be evil," but few know its significance. That phrase is in Google's S1, which means that Google's agreement with their shareholders includes an explicit "out" with respect to ethical concerns. It's essentially 100% contractual between three parties: the corporation; the shareholder; and the SEC. You're making assertions about the typical form of that contractual relationship, and pretending that it's law. It's not, though the law (both explicit and common law) enforces that contractual relationship once it's established.
There are also privately held corporations which rank amongst some of the most powerful entities in the U.S. Fidelity Investments, for example, accounts for a large percentage of the trading that occurs on Wall St. and is privately held. Ned Johnson (who, along with his daughter, are the primary owners of the Fidelity companies), is thus a nearly unimaginably powerful individual who does not answer to the sorts of control structures that exist in pubic corporations.