OT: Questions for Americans

[krw]

I'm sure it does sound stupid to you. You're so clueless any=20 reasonable statement would *sound* stupid, to you.=20

--=20 Keith

[Robatoy]

Oh my. Had I known you to be such a clever and verbally acrobatic adversary, I would never have started this path to my demise.

[i82much]

[krw]

The terminally stupid are often easily impressed; your flattery=20 doesn't mean much.

--=20 Keith

[r payne]

The records are private. The conversations are private between the participants of the conversations and the records are private between the participants of the conversation and the company through which the call was made. If the telcom decided to turn over the records it can but they have thus far been reluctant out of a fear of lawsuits. The law is an attempt to get the records without having to get a court order, which may prove dificult.

Not being a lawyer (thank the powers the be), I cannot speak for ex post facto.

That last statement shows a lack of maturity that completly disembowls the rest of your post.

ron

[J. Clarke]

Every telco except Qwest has turned over the records on request.

[krw]

No, they are most assuredly NOT. They are property of the phone company to do with as they see fit.

The conversations are private, the billing records are not.

No, the law is intended to immunize the phone companies from frivolous lawsuits filed by idiots like yourself.

Evidently you can't speak facto, at all.

Nope. The point is exactly correct. I can't help it if the truth hurts. It *IS* still the truth.

[Andrew Barss]

: What am I not understanding?

That if we don't blindly do everything the administration wants, and make sure to adjust laws as needed to make it all legal, then the Terrorists Will Have Already Won.

-- Andy Barss

[Amused]

I am NOT a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, either

[Morris Dovey]

I missed the "how" and "why" part of what you wrote, but do appreciate your attempt to be responsive.

Are you saying that is doesn't really so appear to me, or are you saying that granting immunity after the fact doesn't give the appearance that there was a need for immunity to be granted?

It does sometimes seem that way. Still, I'm managing to get just a bit closer to ANYTHING every day.

Sometimes asking questions helps - and sometimes it doesn't.

[krw]

How? Why? Conversations are protected by wiretap laws. Billing records are not. The phone company even has them. ;-)

There was a need to save them from the hordes of ambulance chasers that would have sued them senseless. Even if they won (who knows what a stupid jury would do - look at this thread) they'd be out millions in defense costs. Not much incentive to cooperate.

Progress is good. It beats the alternatives.

Sometimes the way a question is asked changes the form of the answer.

[Robatoy]

Well, Andrew, if there aren't enough terrorists to allow an administration to operate under the 'fear' ticket, you might as well make some up. How would you control the angry masses who pay over 4 dollars for gasoline if you didn't have the terrorists to blame?

Take a slice of daily life and remove the influence of terrorists... what would you have left? What if Poland hadn't been a threat to Germany in the 30's? The Dutch were about to invade? You think the German people would have rallied around a mad man in the hope to find protection? It is an old formula. It works. For a while.

Bin Laden has been dead for 4 years. But, he's no good to Bush, dead. So they keep him alive...BOOGA BOOGA!!!

[r payne]

So you (or anyone) can walk into a telco and ask for the numbers to and from any particular number you want and they will give them to you?

The answer is no. This is because this information is not public. Therefore it is private to some group. If a member of the group wants to release it, that member can. Since you demonstrate you are incabable of reading plain english, I don't really expect you to understand this.

[krw]

Of course not. They are the property of the phone company. If they chose to sell the information there isn't a damned thing you could do about it though. There is no expectation of privacy.

It is not private information, as the contents of the call are. The records are telco property. The contents are not.

As can the telco.

You are the one who is acting stupid beyond belief.

[Woodie]

Hmmm.... Sure would like to see some proof of that. Or some credible tidbit of information.

[Robatoy]

Wouldn't we all?

[r payne]

Unless you can provide a third option, the information is either private or public. If the information is public anyone can ask for and get the information. If the information is private one party that is privy to the information has to decide to release it. The big decidion for the telco is that since they are payed to provide a service, they have to keep their customers happy and not everyone would be happy with the release of any information. That is why they have disclosure policies that the customer agrees to when sighing up.

ron

[Robatoy]

So, Morris, was this trip back into The Wreck a pleasant/constructive experience?

[Morris Dovey]

Interesting at least. I wasn't really looking for pleasant, and it's usually informative to hear what constructive people have to say about things that might matter in the long haul. Most of the woodworkers I know (here on the wreck and elsewhere) seem to want to design and build things that'll outlast themselves - and so whether we ultimately agree or not, I find what they have to say interesting...

[krw]

Perhaps to a narrow-minded fool, yes. It is public in the sense that it doesn't take a subpoena for the government to get. It is private in the sense that it is phone company property, to do with as they please.

Correct. Anyone can ask. The phone company may just comply; their option. There is no court demand required for them to comply. Is that simple enough for you?

They are not compelled in any way to keep the information private.

Bullshit.