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.'"
That's an interesting take on it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I dont have a clue? (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, my thoughts are this:
If they waved those rights in their contract, then their argument shouldn't have any weight - they agreed not to tell.
However, if they did not wave those rights in the contracts with customers, then their argument seems sound to me.
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If it really is "protected free speech" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
When did we come full circle?
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Generally, any facts which come into your hands by legitimate means are yours to publish. The exceptions are when you have a special duty of privacy (e.g. attorneys and physicians), information that you are contractually obligated to keep private, or commercial information that is regulated.
It's clear to me that Verizon doesn't have much chance with this line of argument, the new Supreme Court being something of a wild card. If they win, it will have an interesting side effect. All communications carried by Verizon could potentially be claimed by them as their property to dispose of as they wish. They could sell the content of your text messages or emails, or a list of who and by whom you are called.
It's a pretty far out argument, but as I say they may find friends on the newly radicalized Supreme Court.
Man... (Score:3, Interesting)
Precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
Who wants to be the first to tap into the phone lines of Verizon execs and lawyers to hand over to the government? A Slashdot is fine, too.
Oh right, we're just citizens. I guess that means this "right" is only really held by Verizon.
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I think there's more than meets the eye here.
Is anyone here under an NDA with Verizon? (Score:4, Interesting)
Will Verizon sue me for making this suggestion to their contractors and employees, despite my merely exercising my freedom of speech as provided for under the First Amendment of the Constitution of The united States of America?
Or is the first amendment intended to protect voicing of unpopular opinions, especially political opinions, and not to be used to reveal confidential client information?
Re:I dont have a clue? (Score:0, Interesting)
I'm a bit confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean that corporations can start owning firearms and having their own militias, per the 2nd amendment? Does this mean that they can't testify against themselves per the 5th amendment?
Re:I wish there was a way (Score:5, Interesting)
"However, if they did not wave those rights in the contracts with customers, then their argument seems sound to me."
Companies aren't people, and as such do not have the same rights that people have. Verizon is grasping at straws to avoid having their ass handed to them in a class-action lawsuit.
Kneejerk (Score:3, Interesting)
Scenario 1: A house down the block from you is known or strongly suspected to be used for drug trafficking. To gather information about the drug trade and investigate individuals the police park an undercover cruiser nearby to write down license tags of those who visit the house. Those tags are then used to identify the individuals and possibly obtain warrants and wiretaps.
With me so far?
Ok, move this scenario to the virtual world.
Scenario 2: The police need a way to identify potential criminals/terrorists. The closest thing they have to monitor traffic is the phone connection history from the phone company. This history is a huge database of call origination end termination identifiers. They analyze this data to identify folks making calls to known or suspected criminals/terrorists. When they thing they have identified a suspicious call they get a warrant and go back to the phone company to identify the caller so they can then apply for wiretaps. They don't have the "content" of the call or a recording of it, simply a record of start and end points.
Like it or not, the police need some way of tracking activity. In the physical world this is by monitoring any activity in public view. In the virtual world this translates to identifying the "path" each communication took on its way from caller to receiver..
Do corporations enjoy constitutional rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatta load of steaming manure (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have thought Verison had a privacy statement along the lines of We'll do all we can to keep your information private... etc but might give statistical information blah.. or to our advertisers... and partner companies ".
I don't understand how they can legally pass personal information on to a third party that is not expressly called out in the agreement.
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Corporations are NOT CITIZENS (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo! (Score:4, Interesting)
The first amendment is a right of The People. A lot of the problems that we have stem from lawmakers (conveniently) forgetting that the Bill of Rights are the people's rights and that corporations clearly aren't people and unless there is an amendment to the constitution to change it, corporations do not get those protections.
It think the confusion seems to spring from the fact that campaign contributions and lobbying money mostly comes from corporations. I wonder if a blanket ban of contributions from any source other then individual people would make anything work better...
Distorted beyond all reason (Score:2, Interesting)
Editors, if you have a problem with the NSA, criticize the NSA, 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 be accurate here because this is important.
Secondly, shame on Verizon for undermining the first and fourth amendments by pitting them in direct opposition to one another. I'm really unhappy with the clever corporate lawyer who came up with this idea, and his brilliant "strategy" will do nothing but undermine at least one if not both of those amendments. What the hell happened to discretion?
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 our permission, in the exact same way that your photo may not be published without your permission.
So 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.
--
Toro
Re:They have a point.... (Score:3, Interesting)
They have a point, but man, that ranks right up there with:
* The Klan is a legal social club
* The Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at gay funerals
* Neo-Nazis have a right to march in Cincinnati
* Michael Stipe has the right to any haircut he likes
Actually, I don't think they have a point that is parallel to those. Each of those is an example of something bad that doesn't really directly tread on someone's rights (with a possible exception of the second point). These guys are trying to mix their right to speech free from criminal prosecution with freedom from civil action that may result from people harmed from their speech. The question is, are people harmed by turning over records to the government in a direct, quantifiable way? That's still a tough case to prove.
Re: That's an interesting take on it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Therefore, Verizon may not be sued by its customers for turning over their private data to the government.
?????????
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if they rule in favor of Verizon but state that this applies to telecommunications companies only, you'll still have serious problems talking with your doctor / lawyer / accountant. If they are bound by law not to disclose your information and telephone conversations do not provide "an expectation of privacy", then they cannot communicate with you by phone at all. Every time you need to talk to them, you'll have to meet face-to-face.
"You want to know the results of your strep test? Make an appointment for a week from Tuesday."
Re:That's an interesting take on it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, they're saying that they suspect some of their customers may have been engaged in illegal activities, so it is their right under the First Amendment to petition the government (in this case by sharing personal data) to investigate these possible illegal activities. As ridiculous as it sounds, they may actually have a point.
Assuming a corporation is protected by the first amendment (which seems to be the case), this does make some sense. If an individual came to possess information about potentially illegal activities (say, they learn that the company they work for is dumping toxic waste in a nearby river), chances are it would be illegal for them to publish whatever proprietary information they possess that lead to their suspicion/conclusion. To publish the information would (potentially) infringe on the corportation's rights. However, it would be perfectly legal (according to Verizon's claim) for the person to share the data with the government, as a "petition" for something to be done about it.
I'm not a lawyer, but this argument actually does make some sense, if you base it on the assumption that a corporation (Verizon) shares the same constitutional protections as an individual (which while not spelled out, or even suggested AFAIK, in the constitution appears to have been enshrined in case history/judicial interpretation). If all this were to be true, the only question would be whether sharing data on all of their customers rather than specific individuals they suspect of wrongdoing really counts as petitioning the government (especially when it was in response to the government asking for the information).
Anyway, all this is pure speculation on my part, and as I said, I'm no lawyer. But Verizon's argument seems much more interesting than most of the comments I've read imply. They are not claiming the right to publish private information willy-nilly, but rather they apply to a specific provision in the first amendment - that a person has the right to petition the government - and that as part of that petition they may share otherwise confidential data.
But yeah - I hope this goes down in flames, as it seems likely to do.