What is Digg?121 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+125The most blatantly stupid decision in the history of this country (even counting recent events) was the decision to "solve" a big problem in early corporate law by making corporations count as people. We're still paying for it, 150 years later. But it's time for it to end, especially when confronted by crap like this. Google used the 14th Amendment to stop the government (for a short-term win), but what's next? The right for corporations to bear arms?
Corporations should not be considered people in any way shape or form. And they should not have the same 1st or 2nd amendment rights as real human beings. How can we claim the Rule of Law in this country when the law is based on a fiction?
We can actually fix this glaring flaw without slowing Capitalism one bit. Pass a law. I'd call it the "Corporate Bill of Rights," giving corporations many but not all of the protections they need (e.g., right to property ownership, status to file suit, liability protections for shareholders).
But blanket free speech has got to go, and now you see why. For businesses, speech must be 1) true and 2) pertain directly to pursuing their day to day business.
Apart from the idiocy of Verizon claiming a 1st amendment right to screw its customers, making such a change could also work around the Supreme Court's insistence that "money = speech." If corporations are not people and do not have full 1st amendment rights, they do not have the right to contribute to campaigns. Period. Get the corporate money out of Washington once and for all, and do it constitutionally. And to be consistent, I'd apply this to non-profits (incl. unions) too. Only _actual_ human beings, who can _legally_ vote should be entitled to contribute to or participate in campaigns in any way. People can pool their resources, but no one can do it in their name.
I don't want to abuse the comment system any further. Here's the deeper detail, if you're interested: http://www.brownianemotion.org/2007/05/06/how-to-fix-every-problem-in-washington-in-one-easy-step/ - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43Switch to what? T-Mobile chose not to notify customers of a massive data breach involving personal information. Sprint/Lastel sucks. And AT&T has the government's hand so far up its ass, whenever they open their mouth, I can see Cheney's knuckles.
- brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Picking the one you hate the least!
The AMERICAN way! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35I find it ironic that "Free Speech" is used in the same argument as the term "State Secrets". This is one of the first ripples of a far reaching effect 9/11 had on our lives.
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Yeah, you give a corporation the right to bear arms and they might get hired as a private army for the government like Blackwater...
- Salviati, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22This is just another reason why I am glad to no longer be associated with Verizon. Switch if you can.
- DaneArden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Picking the one you hate the least!
Heck that's how I choose who to vote for in every election. - DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I would think that it would be easy to overturn. Rights are not given by government, but by the Creator, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Corporations are born not from the Creator, but from governments, and ARE given rights, which can easily be taken away.
Also, the Bill of Rights are not at all enumerated rights, but restrictions on what the government can do. There is no such thing as a 1st Amendment right. There is, however, and inalienable right to free speech. If you do have a 1st Amendment right, it can easily be taken away through another Amendment.
The same also holds true for governments. Governments have NO rights, just responsibilities that We, The People, give them.
Lawyers these days are either really stupid or really clever. - chrismgtis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Revealing private consumer information is NOT covered in "free speech". If that was true, we could simply reveal company secrets to other countries and be protected under free speech.
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16...Someone post the private information of Verizon's CEO, and we'l give him a taste of free speech from the Netroots vs. The corporate media.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14wonder what happens if cops catch a bunch of burglers conspiring on how to rob a bank, but they get caught still talking/planning it out
do they just claim free speech?
what about when a spy divulges international secrets to the enemy, and he gets caught, can he just claim free speech? - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Protected speech? You've *got* to be kidding me. I don't know what's more preposterous, that Verizon is attempting to use this argument or that they actually expect it to /work/.
- lukehh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Did Alberto Gonzales coach them to that argument?
- Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Ya, all U.S. cell companies suck horribly. You just have to pick out the one you hate the least.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Ah. Well, since it's free speech, then they won't mind disclosing exactly what the government was looking for, right?
- Dipster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I say we dig up all the personal information on the corporate execs, release it, and claim "Free Speech".
- unloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Since corporations are considered people, I think it's obvious what must be done. . .
Google for President! - kalpeshsharma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Protected speech. Public speech. Private speech. Object-oriented concepts?
- skeptic2525, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually it was the Electronic Frontier Foundation - eff.org
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, unloud, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw corporations one day voting (directly), owning armies (already exists), and (with a slight modification to the qualifications for President to allow Arnold to run), running for President.
In fact, uber-wealthy people like Bloomberg are generally already incorporated for tax and other purposes. All we'd need to do (more or less) is remove the language about being a "natural born citizen" and the door would be open, at least once Google turns 35.
BTW, one of the arguments against corporate personhood should be the 13th amendment. If corporations are people, then owning stock is slavery. - 6502programmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6While they own the records, they are NOT free to do whatever they want with them. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 took care of that, deeming that CPNI (what the pros refer to the information as--Customer Proprietary Network Information to us peons) as being off limits, even for marketing within a company. Even if you leave $EVIL_PHONE_COMPANY, they are not allowed to use CPNI to try to woo you back.
- logicalnoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Plus there is that craptacular bill being brought into congress to protect utilities(retroactively too) for giving up consumer information to the government.
- bcchiang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6un effing real
"The issue of whether any of this behavior was legal is not important. The government has already argued that legality doesn't matter when it comes to the phone companies, since even a ruling that their actions were illegal would expose the existence of the intelligence-gathering program in question. Therefore, such cases should not even be considered by the courts." - Neog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Communications Act of 1934 and the Electronic Communications Act of 1986. Which creates a contractual obligation for Verizon and all telecomms
- mlfoley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So it is free speech if I tell them to go ***** themselves?
- Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@6502programmer, Great find, I'd say that could be a valid argument
Telecommunications Act of 1996
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt
SEC. 702. PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
`SEC. 222. PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
`(a) IN GENERAL- Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to...customers...
...
`(c) CONFIDENTIALITY OF CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION-
`(1) PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS-
Except 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. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That would be great, if ti were true. But denial doesn't help. Verizon, like all corporations, is considered an "artificial person" under the law. They have almost all of the same rights as you, and more every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person
(see my first comment for more info) - postnihilist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I find Verizon's argument absurd and insulting. I agree that, in general, providing truthful information in a legal case or other governmental proceeding may be protected as free speech. But that right doesn't trump every other constitutional or legal right affected by disclosure of that information.
Verizon apparently contends that because of its First Amendment right to provide information to the government, it doesn't matter that disclosing the information may have violated the constitutional privacy rights of its customers, the Fourth Amendment rights of customers suspected of criminal activity, or statutory prohibitions against disclosure of the information. The contention is frivolous. If someone has a legal duty to safeguard information about third parties, that person is obligated to resist disclosure of the information unless some legal process, such as a warrant or subpoena, compels disclosure. This duty can't be ignored just because the holder of the information wants to disclose it or the government shows up and asks for it. Verizon tosses in the garbage all its obligations to its customers, as well as all the rights of its customers, in favor of its tortured claim that secretly and voluntarily handing the government a ton of protected consumer data is a cherished constitutional right.
I'm disgusted. I have a crappy Verizon cell phone I think I'll run over with my car about now. Any advice on finding a carrier I can hate less? - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Error, despite your username, you're correct for pointing out the explicit protection for "the press." I didn't mean to imply it wasn't protected by asking "where?"
But "the press" was not considered a corporate entity back then, nor a person, which is why it is protected explicitly. That only helps prove my point.
The industrial revolution was barely started, and I don't think the FF considered the Press as having its own opinions other than that of the individuals doing the editorializing. Corporations do have their own opinions about what's in their own best interest.
And yes, when you walk into your office in most companies, you lose a lot of your personal right to free speech. Just try standing in the hallway on a political soap box. And if you speak for the company (as all employees on the job implicitly do), then it's the company's speech that's being protected, not yours. - TonksKC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Isn't there something that you have to read and sign, like a contract, when you first sign up for a service?
For those people that actually read the terms, doesn't it say somewhere that the company will not give out personal information?
I smell more lawsuits. Joy. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The ***** thing is it probably will work
- halik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Haha grasping-at-straws defense for the win! This argument is on par with Gonzales saying that GW has universal authority since Congress approved him to go to Iraq (ie the NSA wiretapping defense). Usually you can judge how deep in ***** the defendant is by looking how "streched" their arguments are.
- Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Interesting idea, and I see the argument for the characterization you claim, but are you sure that would solve THIS issue? After all, it can certainly be argued that the records are both true and "directly pertaining to the business" (they are business records, after all).
It seems to me that this isn't an issue of the corporation's rights, but of the customer's. After all, if Verizon was a limited partnership rather than a corporation, you wouldn't say they should then have the rights to make these disclosures, would you?
I mean, basically you've turned this into a campaign finance issue, and while there is a tangential relationship, it's a bit stretched. But thanks for the interesting comment. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41. Free Speech restricts the government from suppressing our opinions when voiced.
2. This Verizon communication/sale was done in secret, to the government, possibly for profit, against customer's interests (who own the data), and against the law.
3. The AACS-LA code is just a number, a mathematical concept, an idea, and not even a copyright-able expression like text or art, and therefore not restricted in any way, except the unconstitutional DMCA.
4. Posting it is civil disobedience against that ridiculous law, against a different kind of censorship. - mrmatchgame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Does kicking Verizon in the nuts protected by free speech?
- kckman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok. I've been watching the deterioration and bastardization of the Constitution for more years than I care to count. Let's be clear about this The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created for citizens, and NOT institutions.
If the founding fathers could witness the abuses we have now, they'd be rightfully outraged and would press for change. I miss them and their vision - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm pretty sure it's got something to do with a bunch of early American colonists fighting and bleeding and dying for the right to be /left the ***** alone/ by their government. Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't make my phone conversations any of Uncle Sam's goddamn business.
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Rights are relative. One's rights only go up until they violate another's rights.
Giving away my ***** calls is a violation of my rights, and if Verizon somehow wins, I hope the EFF knows what to do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Pick the one with the phones you can h4xor the most, SPRINT!!!! Of course they are idiots and screw up your bill and their reps know less about phone functionality than a 10 year old but this lack of knowledge works out for me. Getting free GPS on my phone (they dont know and have never known), free powervision and using phone as a modem (sometimes faster than cable, sounds unreal but true, they still dont know), as many games and apps as i want thanks to all the forums out there (can even VNC into my box at home on a crappy samsung A900!) Plus A 20% discount on my bills, TIP>>>>>IF YOU HAVE SPRINT CALL CUST SERVICE, WHEN THE AUTOMATED VOICE ASKS WHY YOU'RE CALLING SAY "DROPPED CALL", YOU CAN DO THIS UP TO 3 TIMES ON ONE CALL, 10 TIMES IN A BILLING PERIOD, EACH DROPPED CALL CLAIM IS WORTH 1$ SO YOU GET 10$ OFF EACH MONTH IF YOU DON'T FORGET. All these awesome features and an ok phone for 39 bucks a month, MWHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA
- Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"wonder what happens if cops catch a bunch of burglers conspiring on how to rob a bank, but they get caught still talking/planning it out"
At common law, there needs to be some overt act for a conspiracy charge. The act itself can be legal (if a bunch of people are sitting talking about robbing a bank, they're fine until one of them picks up the phone, calls the bank and asks their hours). - bcchiang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it has nothing to do with if you have something to hide or not, fact is if the government is willing to go to these measures for the "safety of americans" what will be next?? If it's already a violation that they know is illegal, it open the doors for the next thing to be violated in the name of Terror.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, and don't quote me on this, I believe corporations are seen as citizens..or at least people. This is why when you sue a corporation, your suit is against that corporation, not the people who own/run it. This is one of the good things about being a corporation..litigation against said corporation does not directly affect you (of course if the corporation goes out of business you're *****, but you won't get hit with a lawsuit).
This is why when some ***** goes down at a corporation that involves a law suit, the corporation takes the hit but not necessarily the CEO's. Oh they might (eventually) be fired, but they won't end up in jail unless the personally broke some laws. - SethHoyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wonder why it is that in the US, a corporation's trade secrets have laws to protect them from disclosure, but actual human citizens don't have the same protection for their secret information. This is especially disconcerting given that humans have voting power and corporations do not.
- fuegosecret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm in complete agreement. Its unfair to actual citizens, who are required to, among other things, join the Selective Service (at least men are) for potential draft purposes during times of war. A company can't vote, marry, hold public office, be drafted, nor join the milita, a company has no self, no ethical superego... but just an unopposable will. Also, a company can't receive discipline for wrong doing (can be fined, but not incarcerated). The implications of this have ultimately created a mockery of individual civil rights. I can be jailed for stealing from a company, but the company can't be jailed for stealing from me. This violates quid pro quo. No longer is this the seat of Majority Rules, Minority Rights, but instead its Money Rules, and anyone else gets *****.
- karmajunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@dirtybrowncoat: The problem is there is 150 years worth of precedent built upon the Santa Fe decision, which set corporate personhood in stone. Among the many many problems that would be faced would be that the idea of limited liability corporations (for example) and the liability shield goes out the window, exposing hundreds of millions of individuals to liability for what the company that employs them does. (though I agree with the original poster that this idea of corporate personhood is one of the most egregious assaults on individual rights in our nations history.)
Also, despite the historic nature of the declaration of independence, it has no force of law in this country, nor any bearing on the intent of law. The only such document with any legal bearing is the Constitution and subsequent amendments (i.e., bill of rights). This is why contrary to popular belief, you don't have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as enumerated in the DoI, but instead, the right to life, liberty, and property. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Then why aren't they arguing that, but instead claiming a right to free speech?
- postnihilist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3veritate, it may be at issue, just as Verizon's First Amendment right to disclose the information is at issue, but I haven't heard anything suggesting there is merit to a claim that Verizon could do whatever it wanted with consumer information. You seem determined to demonstrate you know more than every person making a comment on this subject, and to undercut everything that has been said. Maybe you should look for a site sponsoring real-time debates.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@veritate, I agree that businesses do sell records. But that's not an expression of free speech. It's a business transaction, which is governed by commercial law. If Verizon wants to claim they simply sold these to the government to make money, then that's an issue for their customers and them to work out in a lawsuit.
I also agree that if we made the change I proposed, it wouldn't stop Verizon from doing what they did -- but it would stop them from claiming 1st amendment protections for doing so. That's my point. Corporations should not, in the course of making us less free, abuse the protections that were designed to keep us free.
Additional laws may be needed to protect consumer information from such abuse (likely, reinforcing the enumerated/unenumerated privacy protections we should have).
@karmajunkie, I'm proposing to legally protect corporations with new, mostly equivalent law at the same time we'd remove 'personhood' so that corporations and LLCs could continue to exist, albeit without the full 1st amendment protection (one they don't deserve or need). - mumblyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If someone is trying to blow your ass up, what's a lousy phone record? Do you have something to hide?"
Back to high school for you! You obviously skipped both civics class and American history. - sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@karmajunkie:
You are right, there is a lot of precedent that a corporation is person - but the key distinction is that a corporation a fictional person. Therefore, does the first amendment apply? I don't know the answer, but it would seem to be a stretch argument that phone records is the corporate's speech. Actually, my argument would be the phone records are my speech. From my perspective, if the corporation was allowed to use any information about me to further their own interests, the effects would be chilling.
"Also, despite the historic nature of the declaration of independence, it has no force of law in this country, nor any bearing on the intent of law. The only such document with any legal bearing is the Constitution and subsequent amendments (i.e., bill of rights). "
There is no binding influence except the declaration of independence can be used as persuasive authority, much like the federalist papers. And further, even though its not enumerated in the constitution doesn't mean you have the right. For example, its clear that there is a fundamental right to marriage and that the restrict that freedom, congress must have a compelling interest. But is marriage anywhere in the constitution? Or the declaration of indep?
With the constitution, you can't just look at the text (although certain S.C. justices would have you believe that the 4 corners of the document should say everything). Its not possible in a constitution to enumerate every specific right that we have. Sometimes, rights are so obvious, the right wouldn't need to be enumerated. Thats why you do have a fundamental right to happiness - the right to pursue your own dreams and be the decider of your own fate. Thats what America is all about (well, except within rational limits). -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is