Verizon Employees Fired For Snooping Obama's Record 344
longhairedgnome writes "The curiosity in President-elect Barack Obama's phone records came with a high price tag for Verizon Wireless employees. According to CNN, the workers who snooped on Obama's phone records have been fired.
'This was some employees' idle curiosity,' a company source told CNN and added 'we now consider this matter closed.'
Justice served? What about legal possibilities?" Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
Justice Served (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you can expect President Bush to be fired for ordering the wiretap.
Re:No. (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you mean politicans and criminals.
Why politicize this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we really need this politicized to have a discussion about the topic at hand? Which is thoughtless employees snooping around where they have access but apparently no ethics or morals. Something not even close to the situation with warrentless wiretapping, and in no way related? Do we really need this, Taco?
National security and terrorists (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because that was a case of national security to find terrorists.
Not likely illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it be illegal? Disclosure, yes. But these were VZW employees who were given the ability to look at records as part of their job. VZW's policy though is that they only look at records that they have a reason to - for customer service, billing, etc.
Unless they turned these over to an outside party (media, government, etc) then there's probably nothing illegal happening. Completely different from the wiretaps.
It's amazing though that the employees are still dumb enough to not realize that their actions, even if they don't change anything, can be tracked.
Re:Justice Served (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you can expect President Bush to be fired because his term is over and it's time for him to GTFO. The Republicans were fired by the American people, although most of them hold key positions near Obama (keep your friends close, and your enemies closer).
How many? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have generally been an Obama supporter, but was very disappointed that he voted for telecom immunity in the FISA bill last year. Apparently it is ok for corporations as a whole
to snoop on your calls, but not for individual employees to snoop on his. (Note: I am not condoning the action of the employee, it just seems interesting at what level justice applies).
Firing is insufficient. (Score:2, Insightful)
The people who did this at verizon should not only be fired, they should be facing prosecution. If they had been law enforcement officers, then snooping without a warrant should carry greater penalties: "conspiracy to deprive of a constitutional right under color of authority" is a felony. While we're at it, I'd hand out the same penalty to anyone who violated "joe the plumber's" privacy rights.
Goose/gander. (Score:1, Insightful)
Can we expect that justice will be served, and the Ohio government employees who violated Joe the Plumber's privacy be fired, as well?
Re:National security and terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask John McCain, he'll tell you that Obama pals around with terrorists. Perhaps this was a case of national security!
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
The article says that the employees did not access the "contents of the calls"... wait does that mean that Verizon has stored electronic recordings, or transcripts?!?! of all of Obama's calls?!?!
No, it means that the employees only looked at who called the phone, and who was called from the phone. Basically all of the information listed on Obama's phone bill.
Or does this mean that Verizon does not store that information? And who here believes them?
I don't think anyone here honestly believes that Verizon would store every phone conversation made over their network. It would cost way too much money, and it would be a complete waste of resources.
Yup, Joe the plumber snoopers still working (Score:1, Insightful)
ya, this is going to be a fun silent next 4 years. Going to have to hold those views, keep them to yourself.
Or your out!
Re:Justice Served (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, we can't expect people like Nancy Pelosi - who has always been fully briefed on such things - to be fired for being such a hypocrite about it.
Re:No. (Score:1, Insightful)
They got a slap on the wrist (Score:4, Insightful)
They only were the government violating the public trust by abusing their ability to access confidential records on private individuals for partisan political reasons. They keep their jobs.
These guys were just with a company that anyone can decide to stop using. They get fired.
So we can take one or both of two things from this based on the case differences:
- Companies are better at ridding themselves of bad people.
- The government workers were Democrats working in a Democrat-run state, trying to help the Democrat presidential candidate, so they get a pass.
Re:Justice Served (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you can expect President Bush to be fired because his term is over and it's time for him to GTFO. The Republicans were fired by the American people, although most of them hold key positions near Obama (keep your friends close, and your enemies closer).
I would expect you to complain about Obama now, too. He voted in favor of extending the warrantless wiretapping legislation when in the Senate. I would expect him to continue the status quo. If you don't rail against him I would infer you care less about privacy and more about your favorite politician.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you fail to understand the difference. The Imunity wasn't a free pass to say this was a good action. It was saying the government cohorsed you into doing this illegal action, as the government put pressure to do an illegal deed (AKA. Intrapment) they shouldn't need to suffer the legal reprocussions from it.
However if they did it themselfs then it is a different issue.
It is like a uniformed poice man directed traffic to go the wrong way on a one way streen then arrested you for going the wrong way on the street. However if you choose to go the wrong way the next day you are in the wrong.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? We berate ALL politicians here - why does Obama get a pass?
Oh, I forgot - he's for Change. And apparently was born without original sin...
Re:Justice Served (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans were fired by the American people, although most of them hold key positions near Obama (keep your friends close, and your enemies closer).
Or maybe he's keeping qualified people with diverse opinions close so that he doesn't pigeon-hole himself with people who tell him things he already knows. Several of the background stories on him covered his period at the Harvard Law Review where he upset many people because his election to that post didn't give all the open positions to people of the same political affiliation. He's doing the same here.
Re:Not likely illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
You should have finished reading the entirety of his comment. He went on to say that VZW's policy is that they only do so as required to for their job. They upheld their policy by punishing these employees as severely as they could (by firing them).
Obama says no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Awful Goddamned Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are ordered by the government to commit an act that is legal given a set of circumstances, and they inform you that those circumstances have been met, and you have no way to independently verify whether or not they have been met, only a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT would draw a comparison to snooping carried out on an individual's own whim.
Seriously, did I emphasize that enough? The complete fucking idiot part?
If you need to pull your assmongering little petty partisanship into this, at least make an equal comparison: the illegal and unauthorized access of Joe the Plumber's records. So far, nobody has lost their job over that. One person has been put on suspension without pay, but that's not too big of a deal -- she was already on *payed* leave since Nov. 7 due to her use of her government email to conduct fundraising for Obama.
To be a bit more to the point, I, perhaps wrongfully, expect a little less snippy partisanship from Slashdot -- at least in the submissions.
Again, only a complete fucking idiot would compare this to somebody who was told that the government had a right to order a wiretap. Especially when the government is ALLOWED to issue warrentless wiretaps -- read the law, look under "FISA" -- the Attorney General may order a wiretap if it is deemed an emergency case. He's just gotta tell the FISC court within 72 hours that a wiretap has been placed on someone.
Re:Do we really need this? Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this should simply be self-evident.
Don't forget that it also used to be self-evident that white people can't marry black people, that a man can have multiple wives, and that a man can and should beat his wife to keep her in line.
Society and its mores have, and continue to, evolve.
Re:Justice Served (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a hypocrite is a requirement of the job. Being caught committing illegal activities should get someone fired, though. Polititians being above the laws of the people is at the core of corruption and lack of accountability. Leads us back into monarchy, where the King's word is law and the King is above the law.
Who keeps the government accountable? One minute of choice every four or so years certainly does not work very well.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you fail to understand the difference. The Imunity wasn't a free pass to say this was a good action. It was saying the government cohorsed you into doing this illegal action, as the government put pressure to do an illegal deed (AKA. Intrapment) they shouldn't need to suffer the legal reprocussions from it.
First of all, please use a dictionary [reference.com]. Second, it's not like these corporations can be tricked into doing something illegal. They have packs of lawyers roaming their halls who have been dealing with FISA cases for decades. They know the law better than the government does most likely. They knew what they were doing wasn't legal. They did it anyway.
Your traffic analogy is very flawed. Nobody is harmed by traffic being directed the wrong way as long as it is controlled by someone. Happens all the time when there is construction. It's more like a cop asking you to do something that you know is illegal, such as shooting someone. You know it's illegal, no matter what the cop says, and once you've done it, you can't take it back. Why would you do it?
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because if corporations are going to be corrupt, they are going to do it in a way that costs them money.
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Snuggles up quite closely to former lobbyists, though:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403922_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
Anyway, the fact that you, thuggishly like so many Obama supporters on the internet, defend the man with threats of some nature; he disagrees with you over Obama, so you think he should be silenced with the Troll tag.
Love of Obama has become a sort of religion for many (not all, but many) Obama supporters. Obama is beyond criticism. Depending on when someone criticized Obama you'd instantly be pelted with candidate-centric mudslinging even if you did not express a preference for any candidate. For example, When criticizing Obama online, I was instantly deluged with attacks on (due to his internet popularity) Ron Paul, then later Hillary Clinton, and then finally McCain and THEN Palin, Palin, Palin. Obviously some politicians are better than others, some much better than others, and yes, Obama is much better than others. But he is both human and a politician, and Obama has been playing the same game as most mainstream politicians so far. No one is above criticism and politicians most of all should be treated skeptically.
But skepticism towards Barack? Unthinkable, for many of his followers.
Uh, no (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama the One, the Messiah whom we can never criticize (how absurd), has had lobbyists working for him [thehill.com] and he took millions from lobbyists [opensecrets.org] during the election, including over $7 million from TV/Movies/Music, and you know they will be expecting tougher IP laws for their bucks. Had Obama kept his pledge to take public funds as he promised McCain, there would have been a hell of a lot less lobbyist money in the campaign, and the election might have been closer. So it's fair to say that lobbyists had a significant impact on Obama getting into the White House.
So now he's Mr. Clean? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'd prefer to hear him reject lobbyist money for the 2012 election cycle, and ban his staffers from talking to lobbyists, not the token, meaningless ban on employing them in his administration.
This whole "Obama is above criticism" meme is fucking scary in a constitutional democratic republic.
And your open admission that you would abuse your mod points to punish someone for having the temerity to do so makes me hope you never get any.
Your expectations are illogical conclusions (Score:1, Insightful)
"Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well."
The employees were fired because they didn't have the authority nor permission to snoop Obama's records. Not only is a wiretap a different action, those employees were instructed to do the wiretaps...
Do you normally fire employees for following policy and instruction!? Your logic is diluted by your hate for Bush. Are you going to be just as angry when the wiretaps continue under Obama?
Re:Justice Served (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm talking both sides... *ANYBODY* making a career of politics is going
> to lose touch with the people he is supposed to represent after a period
> of time. By forcing them out after a set period of time, they might
> actually try to get something *real* done instead of constantly trying to
> stay in office.
In general I am on board with this suggestion. However, there are two issues. The good ones are SO RARE that if they do happen to get into office, I would like to keep them there. For example, Ron Paul has been in Congress since he was 5 years old, and whatever you think about him specifically, you have to admit he sticks to principles and brings a valuable diversity to the discourse. Same, for the most part, with Kucinich and a few others.
The other issue has to do with problems that have a broader horizon than 4-6 years. For example, in the short term, deficit spending and borrowing from other nations are not problems. A $x billion deficit is not going to bite a 4-6 year politician in the ass. The shorter the term, the less motivation a politician will have for attacking issues that have a longer-term payoff. However, this is a problem anyway... I just feel like it would get worse.
And, anyway, what good does it do to oust Face #19583 of the Republicrats just to replace her with Face #983025? I think there is a problem with diversity of discourse in general in our political system, and I'm not sure that term limits will get us anything but fresher idiots.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Always attack never defend has become the new debate style in American politics. This was brought on by news commentators making outrageous claims and forcing the opposition to defend and legitimize the claim.
Cry about it all you want, but instead of attacking people you don't like, try defending the ones you do. You just get pushed around by bad logic, strawmen, and people that really don't care if they lie.