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.'"
If it really is "protected free speech" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How Orwellian (Score:5, Insightful)
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Spying is Free Speach
Re:I dont have a clue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come *on*! (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment protects us from government censorship. It's awfully brazen of Verizon to try to stretch that into protection of collusion with government. Especially when the speech in question is not political or even personal.
Verizon might have a tenuous point if they were simply selling the data to another company. Instead, since the only possible government use of Verizon's data is to enable crackdowns, the matter seems to fit better under the fourth or fifth amendments, both of which would arguably prohibit the whole transaction.
Thomas Paine's speech [wikipedia.org] is protected; Benedict Arnold's [wikipedia.org] is not.
Confidentality and free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
-b.
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad state of legalese (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
The Verizon argument was that their "speech" was true. So yes, if there really is a fire in the theatre, you should raise the alarm.
Of course, you'll probably be arrested as a terrorist when you do, but that's life.
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is This a Parody? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also a tragically pathetic ploy at trying to justify something they KNOW DAMN WELL is wrong, in the service of a growing police state. They are more interested in sucking up to this administration (and their own business interests, since they are in various federal legal battles [twice.com], federal merger fights [mondaq.com], etc.)
If this is the best legal justification they can come of for doing it, they would be much better served by simply turning the tables, refusing to do it, and forcing the federal government to make THEIR case for it.
Is it 1982? (Score:5, Insightful)
Common Misconception (Score:5, Insightful)
In old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the problem is not the speech itself, but the resulting stampede and probable damage to people and property.
Slander is another example. You are free to stand up in public and say all sorts of nasty things about someone, but then they can sue you.
If Verizon wants to claim First Amendment rights, fine. We'll just start a class-action lawsuit.
Corporations are NOT CITIZENS (Score:5, Insightful)
We need some severe curtailment of corporate rights. Immediately.
The problem here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know companies are supposed to have protections - in fact the must have some protections, but any time a company uses citizenship protections to claim the right to violate a real citizens right to protection from illegal search and seizure, something is wrong. In fact, any time a company is seen as having protections that supersede any individuals, something is very wrong.
This doesn't mean that Verizon should absolutely refuse any and all cooperation with the government - quite the contrary, but they should at least demand due process. That's a responsibility they take when they accept our custom. For my part, any indication they've handed my info over, they'd better have some very specific, rock solid warrants on record. As it is, I'm inclined to drop all their services at earliest opportunity. Too bad, they actually have the best offerings in my area, thought they're a bit on the costly side.
Re:Confidentality and free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevant -- I'm saying that their *argumentation* and *reasoning* are simply wrong.
-b.
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference between "not in the Constitution" and "contrary to the Constitution" (i.e. unconstitutional).
Re:Confidentality and free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
So if it's true that someone wants to kill the President, they should be allowed to sing it from the rooftops with no legal consequences?
Is it actually against the law to do this? It is illegal to threaten to kill him -- but is it actually illegal to want to kill him?
I.e: "I'm going to kill Bush" is obviously a threat. "I wish somebody would kill Bush" doesn't seem like one.
Verizon's argument == govt's (Score:5, Insightful)
In this they are just borrowing a page from our distinguished gentlepersons in the administration, who feel that breaking ANY law is fine if you're working on the whole terrorism problem.
It's not monitoring *only* suspected terrorists... (Score:5, Insightful)
FISA is intended to provide *exactly* the flexibility required to enable surveillance responsive to changing conditions (the genesis of the 72-hour provision), while still requiring the judicial review that is part of the fourth amendment's requirement of showing probable cause.
And I agree with other commenters that customer transaction records (be they phone calls, or reporting on who bought what groceries for how much) is by no stretch of the imagination "protected free speech".
Where did the common sense go? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Confidentality and free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Declaring the divulgance of customer information as Free Speach could have some serious repercussions. Above example may seem a bit silly but it is hardly out of the realm of possibility. Another very similar possibility would be the government getting everyone's purchase records and some DHS twit deciding to run a "cookbook" data search and make a list of all those who have purchased within x time the complete ingredients for at least one recipe and then rounding up everyone on the list for questioning while searching their property and seizing their computer, additionally comparing records from their isp.
The government should be restricted to investigating crimes committed. Living in fear with a paranoid mind is not living Free. Even if they stop one terrorist attack, it would never compensate for the indeterminable harm done from the limitless false positives.
Re:Confidentality and free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations should be stripped of their status as "persons". This was the natural outcome, and the end result will be a tyranny so ugly, you'll be sorry you were born.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not monitoring *only* suspected terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is to provide law enforcement entities with all information relevant to suspects that have received judicial review of probable cause.
If we're going to track things, the least we can do is filter them for relevancy. In this case, my disagreement with Verizon (and AT&T, who has also been entirely too cooperative with this exceptional monitoring) is that they are not filtering the content for relevancy to the actual suspects.
I remain committed to the idea that "they" (government) should required to submit requests to invade "our" privacy for a theoretically disinterested judicial review. Upon receiving that permission, the technical means is available for providing all relevant information to the monitoring law enforcement entities. All I would ask from our service providers is the filtering for relevance to those whose activities have passed the judicial test of probable cause.
I assume that as a commenter on Slashdot, you are aware of the basic technologies involved in this discussion, and therefore are aware that event filtering is technically feasible. (I will provide a resume to you, including the 8 years that I worked at AT&T BL developing SS7 switching infrastructure, if you really need to get into the ability of modern systems to provide basic filtering.)
I see no place in my comment where the concept of "currently committing a crime" appears in the discussion. That statement is a simple red herring and is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is simply judicial review of probable cause, and while there are likely subtleties to the legal arguments, we still have the fourth amendment. Showing probable cause to justify looking into what are otherwise private communications is a central part of it.
Re:Corporations are NOT CITIZENS (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc. are legal persons under the law; Human beings are natuarl persons.
Natural persons have the right to vote, legal persons do not. No matter how much legal persons lobby, it doesn't do any good if natural persons vote for a natural person that isn't devoid of ethics. If you are pissed at the system, get up from behind your computer and go vote.
Don't be so quick to demand the recision of rights. If we switched out verizon's name for a more Slashdot friendly legal person I think you would be screaming the exact opposite. EFF, a legal person, FSF, a legal person, Slashdot, a legal person. It is amasing how blind people are to the facts and only care about the individuals involved. Which is exactly why natural persons who are devoid of ethics get votes. They just whisper that they are on your side, and then voters blindly follow them no matter what the facts say.
That being said, Verizon will lose this motion, it is a poor arguement. Directly citing the Constitution is like calling somebody a Nazi, it means you have no other arguements left. But I haven't read the actual court papers, just TFA.
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if you go along that route, and empower a corporation with the rights of the CEO, you would also need to impart onto the CEO the responsibilities of the corporation. Suddenly the CEO's of tobacco companies would be defending themselves in court for negligent homicide, rather than just having shareholders annoyed at the dip in stock price following cash settlements.
I'm willing to bet this is a road most corporate executives don't want to go down.
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good idea, but your ambitions fall short of the mark:
We should be publishing the content of every single Verison R&D server, database, desktop, etc. Trade secrets? Nope, free speech. New products with a "we must be first to market to make this work?" Nope, free speech. Patented, propritary product designs? Nope, free speech.