On Feb 1, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Which gets us back to that well-worn phrase: the banality of evil. The
big muckety-mucks may get the wine and the dine, but it is the
'front
line' employees who do the deed. And when the facts get out it is the
'front line' employees who get
No need for that. As said earlier, none of this was undertaken by
the front line employees. It was all approved and ordered by the
big muckety-mucks, the same ones who wine, dine, contribute to and
play golf with administration bigwigs.
Which gets us back to that well-worn phrase: the
On Jan 29, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
Whether this was in response to a National Security Letter or not is
unspecified. What is clear is that, assuming the source is accurate,
the apparent violations of normal practice may have occurred on
a small scale.
One claim that you can
On Jan 29, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
Whether this was in response to a National Security Letter or not is
unspecified. What is clear is that, assuming the source is accurate,
the apparent violations of normal practice may have occurred on
a small scale.
Here is an article on
-
From: Computer Guys Announcements and Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:30 PM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Telephone companies and privacy
I do not believe that when a government official approaches you
Read the book about the Duke LaCrosse trio that I am listening to on
Public Radio would make the hairs on the back of your head stand up.
Stewart
At 06:40 AM 1/29/2008, you wrote:
I'm so glad this was corrected. This kind of mistakes bugs the hell
out of me. Recently noticed it once
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
It's easy to suggest impropriety. I think the burden of proof
is yours, sir.
I offer this.
http://tinyurl.com/3xc5o5
* == QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the
No wonder people hate lawyers and the legal system.
To get us back on topic (sort of), this takes us back to an earlier
thread Time Warner pay based on Data Usage. The point in both cases is
greedy corporations starting propoganda campaigns to pollute our
understanding of reality. Time Warner
Mr Sande, your turn. Blinders are so very hard to
discard...
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
PM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Telephone companies and privacy
I do not believe that when a government official approaches you and
asks
you to commit a crime, the proper answer should not be Yes Sir!
Oops. I have an extra not in there.
You probably understood
Bandwidth shortage...yeah. Cox is testing 30mbit here in phoenix.
Friend of mine posted 28.7mbit test results via dslreports.
Mike
On Jan 29, 2008 9:51 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No wonder people hate lawyers and the legal system.
To get us back on topic (sort of), this takes
, though.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Telephone companies and privacy
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
It's easy to suggest impropriety. I
Suggesting, if the numbers are accurate, that .0078 of the responses
for data were without court order or subpoena in advance, which is
the normal procedure.
Are you not playing with statistics here? They admit to 720 illegal acts
during a period of 2-3/4 years. There are about 690 business days
Plus, at least some of these requests were very broad. Not just who did
this person call, but all the persons this person called and all the
people those people called. That's going to be a big number.
Well, not exactly. It was stated that the telco didn't keep calling
circle data. Also, the
Collusion with NSA? If the feds come up to me and say we need this,
my first reaction, when and how soon! They are the government and I
am responsible to them. (Remember Verizon operates under the
privilege of the Federal government to use the airwaves and the phone lines.)
You sound like a
Rev. Stewart Marshall
Whatever you want to believe.
It has always amazed me that people want privacy but
leave it all hang out (so to speak) In this day of
technology you leave so many digital footprints out
there. Kind of reminds me of the Head of google
getting all bent out of shape when
Western European born, US Raised, but raised with an understanding
that there are two realms you live in, spiritual/political-governmental.
Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar and render unto God that
which is God. 4th Commandment stuff. (Remember I come from a highly
religious
I do not believe that when a government official approaches you and asks
you to commit a crime, the proper answer should not be Yes Sir!
Oops. I have an extra not in there.
You probably understood what I intended anyway.
Well, sir, all I can say is that you need to investigate the
goings on within the very company that you apparently
work for.
It's easy to suggest impropriety. I think the burden of proof
is yours, sir.
I can tell you for a certain fact that no one under my command
was ever given an illegal
In the news these days are stories about how our current
administration is desperately trying to protect telephone companies
from lawsuits that may be or are being filed as a result of their
illegal participation in monitoring and wiretapping activities.
I just paid my phone bill
Whoa there hoss.
You are mistaking two different sets of privacy.
1.) The privacy of your information as a customer and your financial
information you share with them. (As just evidenced as you made you
payment on your phone bill using a financial instrument.)
2.) You extrapolate this
It was the As always part that got to me the most. Pure horse
manure.
Verizon is committed to the privacy of communications.
In the absence of a court order we will not divulge subscriber
information or traffic details.
That is how our front line forces are trained to operate.
Privacy has gone the way of the dodo. Technology rules. Get over it.
Fred Holmes
At 07:32 PM 1/27/2008, Steve Rigby wrote:
In the news these days are stories about how our current
administration is desperately trying to protect telephone companies
from lawsuits that may be or are being
On Jan 27, 2008, at 8:20 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Whoa there hoss.
You are mistaking two different sets of privacy.
I do not think I am mistaking two different sets of privacy.
Privacy guarantees as pertaining to my personal information is
exactly what could have been violated
I was unaware that Verizon had resisted executive
orders (sidestepping the relevant court required under
FISA) to allow wiretaps on US citizens.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
Whatever you want to believe.
It has always amazed me that people want privacy but leave it all
hang out (so to speak) In this day of technology you leave so many
digital footprints out there. Kind of reminds me of the Head of
google getting all bent out of shape when Cnet googled his info
On Jan 27, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Collusion with NSA? If the feds come up to me and say we need
this, my first reaction, when and how soon! They are the
government and I am responsible to them.
I think the opposite. I, and you, are the most dominant and
On Jan 27, 2008, at 9:40 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
I grew up being taught that ex post facto laws were prohibited by
the
Constitution (Article I, section 9). Or is this just another of those
inconvenient truths?
Some would say that you grew up in a different generation, that
things are
In the news these days are stories about how our current
administration is desperately trying to protect telephone companies
from lawsuits that may be or are being filed as a result of their
illegal participation in monitoring and wiretapping activities.
I grew up being taught that ex post
On Jan 27, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Fred Holmes wrote:
Privacy has gone the way of the dodo. Technology rules. Get over it.
Yeah, well, I'm pickin' my nose right now, but you still can't see
me do it, can you?
Steve
*
I have been married for 27 years. No longer a reason to worry. :-)
Stewart
At 09:21 PM 1/27/2008, you wrote:
Really? Even to your most intimate and perhaps revealing of
conversations?
Steve
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prince of Peace
Ozark, AL SL 82
On Jan 27, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
Verizon is committed to the privacy of communications.
In the absence of a court order we will not divulge subscriber
information or traffic details.
That is how our front line forces are trained to operate.
But, it was not the front line
I do not think I am mistaking two different sets of privacy.
Privacy guarantees as pertaining to my personal information is
exactly what could have been violated by Verizon in their collusion
with the NSA.
Could have? That's a weak argument as far as evidence that
Verizon colluded with
On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:17 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
I do not think I am mistaking two different sets of privacy.
Privacy guarantees as pertaining to my personal information is
exactly what could have been violated by Verizon in their
collusion with the NSA.
Could have? That's a weak
34 matches
Mail list logo
