TREASON

[therealUT]

`© CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK
INFORMATION-
`(1) PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERSExcept
as required by law or with the approval of the customer,
a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer
proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a
telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit
access to individually identifiable customer proprietary
network information in its provision of (A) the
telecommunications service from which such information is
derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the
provision of such telecommunications service, including the
publishing of directories.
`(2) DISCLOSURE ON REQUEST BY CUSTOMERS- A telecommunications
carrier shall disclose customer proprietary network
information, upon affirmative written request by the customer,
to any person designated by the customer.
`(3) AGGREGATE CUSTOMER INFORMATION- A telecommunications
carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network
information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications
service may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate
customer information other than for the purposes described in
paragraph (1). A local exchange carrier may use, disclose, or
permit access to aggregate customer information other than for
purposes described in paragraph (1) only if it provides such
aggregate information to other carriers or persons on
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon
reasonable request therefor.
`(d) EXCEPTIONS- Nothing in this section prohibits a
telecommunications carrier from using, disclosing, or permitting
access to customer proprietary network information obtained from
its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents--
`(1) to initiate, render, bill, and collect for
telecommunications services;
`(2) to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to
protect users of those services and other carriers from
fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to,
such services; or
`(3) to provide any inbound telemarketing, referral, or
administrative services to the customer for the duration of the
call, if such call was initiated by the customer and the
customer approves of the use of such information to provide
such service.
`(e) SUBSCRIBER LIST INFORMATION- Notwithstanding subsections
(B), ©, and (d), a telecommunications carrier that provides
telephone exchange service shall provide subscriber list
information gathered in its capacity as a provider of such service
on a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and
reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, to any person upon request
for the purpose of publishing directories in any format.
`(f) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section:
`(1) CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION- The term
`customer proprietary network information' means--
`(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical
configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a
telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of
a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to
the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the
carrier-customer relationship; and
`(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to
telephone exchange service or telephone toll service
received by a customer of a carrier;
except that such term does not include subscriber list
information.
`(2) AGGREGATE INFORMATION- The term `aggregate customer
information' means collective data that relates to a group or
category of services or customers, from which individual
customer identities and characteristics have been removed.
`(3) SUBSCRIBER LIST INFORMATION- The term `subscriber list
information' means any information--
`(A) identifying the listed names of subscribers of a
carrier and such subscribers' telephone numbers, addresses,
or primary advertising classifications (as such
classifications are assigned at the time of the
establishment of such service), or any combination of such
listed names, numbers, addresses, or classifications; and
`(B) that the carrier or an affiliate has published,
caused to be published, or accepted for publication in any
directory format.'.

Under this Act, the government has the authority to obtain and peruse any phone records, and to listen in on any phone calls, as long as when they conduct the surveillance they do it to anonymous parties. Once they have established that there is a credible threat, then they have probable cause to gather the names from those records and phone calls.

 

[volinbham]

Awww....pwease don't run this story....good effort. Don't go for above and beyond or anything. And as for whining, read all of the conservative blogs and listen to talk radio. See what's the talk of Congress. So yeah, I'd say the defenders of this are the ones doing all of the whining.

I thought the problem was W was going too far above and beyond - now he's not going far enough?

Hint: I'm saying the people saying W is running rough shod over the constitution are the whiners.

 

[volinbham]

Ask the folks who have been illegally held in Cuba under the guise of a lawful tribunal process how well it's worked for them.

Guess we should have shot them on the battle field to avoid violating their rights...

 

[CSpindizzy]

I thought the problem was W was going too far above and beyond - now he's not going far enough?

Hint: I'm saying the people saying W is running rough shod over the constitution are the whiners.

My comments were a slight at those who are calling for the heads of NYT employees. I'm saying that if what they did is wrong and so evil, why is no one pursuing this? If it was so wrong, why did they NOT go through the courts? You can't be all gung-ho national security screaming treason when you had the chance to stop it and did nothing but say please don't print the story. Bush says he wants to use all means at his disposal but failed to in these instances.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Under this Act, the government has the authority to obtain and peruse any phone records, and to listen in on any phone calls, as long as when they conduct the surveillance they do it to anonymous parties. Once they have established that there is a credible threat, then they have probable cause to gather the names from those records and phone calls.

How did you come to that conclusion? The same way you figured this only applied to monopolies? You're reaching here.

 

[hatvol96]

Guess we should have shot them on the battle field to avoid violating their rights...

That would be preferable to making a farce of the Constitution.

 

[GAVol]

You can't be all gung-ho national security screaming treason when you had the chance to stop it and did nothing but say please don't print the story. Bush says he wants to use all means at his disposal but failed to in these instances.

What really could the White House do other than ask for some discretion? The there was nothing illegal here except for on the part of the leaker. The NYT was within their rights . . . that doesn't make it right though.

 

[therealUT]

How did you come to that conclusion? The same way you figured this only applied to monopolies? You're reaching here.

I came to that conclusion by reading the Act.

Oh, and by the way, the intention of the act, as a whole, is to discourage monopolies.

 

[volinbham]

That would be preferable to making a farce of the Constitution.

Again - I don't believe that this ruling was on "constitutional" grounds so if it's making a farce of anything it certainly isn't the constitution.

Personally, I wouldn't consider being killed a preferable alternative to GITMO but hey that's just me :biggrin2:

 

[hatvol96]

Again - I don't believe that this ruling was on "constitutional" grounds so if it's making a farce of anything it certainly isn't the constitution.

Personally, I wouldn't consider being killed a preferable alternative to GITMO but hey that's just me :biggrin2:

If the the executive branch is performing acts outside its constitutional authority, like the military tribunals, those acts are per se unconstitutional.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I came to that conclusion by reading the Act.

Oh, and by the way, the intention of the act, as a whole, is to discourage monopolies.

Nice loose interpretation. I guess the 'intention' of the act regarding disclosure is different than your conclusion. Those who pushed it even said this was to keep disclosure limited to customer approval.

And the intention of who? The 'intention' sure is broad ranging with much of it covering cable, radio, TV, and online porn. And you said 'solely'. You didn't say anything about intent.

 

[therealUT]

Nice loose interpretation. I guess the 'intention' of the act regarding disclosure is different than your conclusion. Those who pushed it even said this was to keep disclosure limited to customer approval.

And the intention of who? The 'intention' sure is broad ranging with much of it covering cable, radio, TV, and online porn. And you said 'solely'. You didn't say anything about intent.

FIRST READ THE ACT, CSPIN! Then talk about it. If you had read it, I am sure you would not have missed the introduction to the Act, which states:

FILE s652.enr
--S.652--
S.652
One Hundred Fourth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six
An Act
To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure
lower prices and higher quality services for American
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of
new telecommunications technologies.
[Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, [<-Italic]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

At least know what you are talking about CSpin, because if my interpretation is loose, than so too was the interpretation made by the 104th Congress.

 

[therealUT]

If the the executive branch is performing acts outside its constitutional authority, like the military tribunals, those acts are per se unconstitutional.

Military tribunals are completely within the authority of the Executive Branch, you know, The Commander-in-Chief.

Also, the court did not rule that military tribunals conducted by the Executive Branch were unconstitutional, it ruled that the way these tribunals were run violated the Geneva Conventions. This ruling was based on the precedent set in 2002 or 2003 that terrorists and other non-affiliated and non-uniformed combatants are subject to the Geneva Convention (which is amusing because the Geneva codes directly address the question of non-uniformed and non-affiliated combatants) that stated that the terrorists America detains are somehow subject to those rights granted to uniformed and affiliated combatants.

Moving on, the ruling basically stated that since they are protected by Geneva codes, they are then granted certain rights. One of those is actually being present at their trials. So, the military tribunals will not go away, they will just be modified.

 

[hatvol96]

Military tribunals are completely within the authority of the Executive Branch, you know, The Commander-in-Chief.

Also, the court did not rule that military tribunals conducted by the Executive Branch were unconstitutional, it ruled that the way these tribunals were run violated the Geneva Conventions. This ruling was based on the precedent set in 2002 or 2003 that terrorists and other non-affiliated and non-uniformed combatants are subject to the Geneva Convention (which is amusing because the Geneva codes directly address the question of non-uniformed and non-affiliated combatants) that stated that the terrorists America detains are somehow subject to those rights granted to uniformed and affiliated combatants.

Moving on, the ruling basically stated that since they are protected by Geneva codes, they are then granted certain rights. One of those is actually being present at their trials. So, the military tribunals will not go away, they will just be modified.

They specifically said the executive branch was acting without proper Congressional authorization. Hence, they were acting outside their Constitutional powers.

 

[CSpindizzy]

FIRST READ THE ACT, CSPIN&#33; Then talk about it. If you had read it, I am sure you would not have missed the introduction to the Act, which states:
At least know what you are talking about CSpin, because if my interpretation is loose, than so too was the interpretation made by the 104th Congress.

I think the words of the actual sponsors says it all. Instead of acting like you know it all try reading all info on the subject. Read the words of the sponsors, read the speeches on the floor. I happen to have interned with a Congressman quite involved in this subject. I would have a little better grasp of what this was about than your simple reading of the introduction. Note it doesn&#39;t fully state SOLELY about monopolies as well.

 

[therealUT]

I think the words of the actual sponsors says it all. Instead of acting like you know it all try reading all info on the subject. Read the words of the sponsors, read the speeches on the floor. I happen to have interned with a Congressman quite involved in this subject. I would have a little better grasp of what this was about than your simple reading of the introduction. Note it doesn&#39;t fully state SOLELY about monopolies as well.

NO, I THINK THE WORDS OF THE ACTUAL ACT SAYS MORE. THANKS THOUGH.

 

[volinbham]

They specifically said the executive branch was acting without proper Congressional authorization. Hence, they were acting outside their Constitutional powers.

When the congress creates a law that is later deemed unconstitutional are they then acting outside of their constitutional powers?