All these Verizon posts...

[IA_Seth]

Ok ok, so I agree with everyone that if Verizon illegally handed over call records it was wrong.

But as a Verizon employee, cutting off service and suing for billions is only going to affect me..the working, democratic, peons of the company. Besides, I work in a division that has nothing to do with local or cellular service and even those that do would have nothing to do with the decisions that led to the handling of records.

So please consider the big picture when you take action. I know everyone is trying to send a message, but what that message may cost the employees (who had nothing to do with the decision) is their livelyhood. Protesting at a local facility won't be felt by the CEO's that made the decisions (heck, they won't even know) and boycotting services will put working Americans (many of whom are CWA union members) out of work.

[Beware the Beast Man]

1. I'm locked into a 2-year contract. I'm not going anywhere.

[grateful581]

34. me too

and I also think that Verizon has the best wireless coverage. (at least here in utah)

[NJ Democrats]

39. I am as well

Plus, Verizon has the best service and all my friends have it so its free to talk to them. I will not be dumping my Verizon Service at all any time soon.

[arwalden]

2. Yeah... That Really Sucks.

Especially when retaliation and abandonment has an effect on folks that really had nothing to do with the decision to break the law.

It's difficult to strike a balance between wanting to punish the company and not wanting to cause hardships to their innocent employees. How does one do that?

What's the best way to retaliate and punish without harming the innocent workers? What's the tipping point where I cease giving Verizon a free pass? How bad would Verizon have to behave before I decide to drop them (despite the consequences to their employees)?

Difficult questions to answer.

[IA_Seth]

3. Exactly.

All I can ask is for everyone to consider the consequences of their actions. Will it cause the company financial hardships? Yes. Are they deserving of those hardships? Possibly, if they handed over records without regard to proper law. But will the CEO's and other board members who were involved in this process feel the impact of this sort of retaliation? Not likely.

Bernie Ebbers screwed WorldCom good and thousands of employees lost their jobs. We became MCI, were bought by Verizon and now we felt we were finally on track. Now it looks like more of us will most likely end up without jobs because of the actions of a few executives who will still retire with millions in options.

[Hugin]

6. I heard they *sold* the records to the NSA.

For what it's worth.

[arwalden]

9. The Execs Are Hiding Behind Their Employees

Should the public do NOTHING for fear of hurting innocent employees? Are the execs counting on that?

Is that the same as giving them a free pass?

[IA_Seth]

4. Dupe! n/t

[IA_Seth]

5. Wow, another Dupe! n/t

[BigMcLargehuge]

12. I know the perfect punishment...

Verizon should have to buy 1 billion dollars of my company's telecom e-Learning!

[matcom]

7. sorry but Verizon MUST be held accountable

this is a no brainer. they fucked (ILLEGALLY) with millions of citizens info. period.

slam dunk and i hope they pay dearly for it. if they don't, the rest will roll over next time.

the Constitution does not guarantee your job but it sure as HELL is supposed to guarantee MY rights.

[Hugin]

8. Hallelujah!

Dang, you get fired up sometimes matcom?

^5

[IA_Seth]

10. And I don't disagree with you...

Do what you will to prove your point, all I am asking is that you consider the thousands of jobs that are in jeopardy. Verizon currently employs somewhere in the 350,000 range of employees, of which I believe about half are union jobs.

I will almost guarantee you that the decisions that led to the releasing of data were thoroughly vetted by lawyers. If there is someone that needs to "pay dearly" for it, it is this corrupt administration that requested and has used the data for classified purposes.

[matcom]

11. this has NOTHING to do with 'proving a point'

what part of ILLEGAL & PRIVACY & RIGHT to privacy & GOVERNMENT INTRUSION & ORWELL do you not understand?

NOTHING to do with 'proving a point'

[IA_Seth]

13. And this has nothing to do with...

Me not understanding, as I've clearly stated. I agree with you that IF this is proven to be an illegal handling of customer records on the part of Verizon, than it is wrong. But that HASN'T been proven at this point. There hasn't BEEN a legal ruling on Verizon's cupability, and until that point your stating that what they did was illegal is mere speculation. Speculation that can cause people to lose jobs when combined with cutting off services and boycotting companies.

Yes, this admin should have no rights to this information, but until it has been proven that Verizon (or any other company) has done anything illegal, you are only jeopardizing jobs that keep working americans above water.

That's all I am trying to say, and if you can't (or won't) get that, then so be it.

Good day.

[matcom]

17. QWest wouldn't do it because there was NO WARRANT.

end of speculation. no warrant = ILLEGAL

[arwalden]

18. Oh You And Those Damn FACTS!!

No fair!!! Always using FACTS to prove your point! Why can't you just make personal attacks and insults like everyone else?

[matcom]

19. .

:rofl:

:loveya:

[IA_Seth]

22. Not a fact?

That is not a fact.

If a cop rolls up on my home and smells marijuana coming from my windows, a warrant isn't needed to search my home.

matcom's "No Warrant = illegal" is NOT a fact, plain and simple.

[arwalden]

31. I Understand Your Concerns...

... but I think more research is needed... and an OBJECTIVE eye is also needed.

Yes, there are circumstances where a warrant is not needed to obtain customer information from Verizon. Yes, there are circumstances where it's completely legal for Verizon to provide customer calling records... HOWEVER it would be quite a stretch for anyone argue that last week's revelations fall under those categories.

It's clear to see that Verizon was providing this information to NSA with regard to NON-specific "threats". It's also clear that they were doing this for A GREAT NUMBER--if not EVERY--customer(as opposed to just providing the information for one person or a specific group of people). It's also pretty obvious that this activity was ONGOING (rather than a one-time response to an immanent threat).

Efforts to split-hairs by declaring Verizon "innocent" of any wrong-doing, on the technicality that they haven't actually been convicted in a court, aren't very convincing.

It may not be a "legally proven" fact... but it's still a FACT.

[huskerlaw]

37. wrong.

Your marijuana example would be a plain view search.

My Verizon phone records aren't in anybody's "plain view". They do need a warrant, that is fact. It was illegal.

I'm sorry that you work for a shithole company. I'm sorry that you may be adversely affected. But we can't sit back and say, "oh well, it really sucks that my constitutionally guaranteed personal liberties were ripped out from under me, but I can't do anything about it because some people may lose their jobs..."

I truly am sorry, but what else can we do?

[no name no slogan]

20. Yeah, but Qwest still sucks mega-donkeys

[IA_Seth]

21. Why thank you judge/jury Matcom..

Why don't we just do away with our judicial system so long as we have you?

No warrant could mean that it was deemed necessary that one was not necessary. Have you studied the laws regulating telecom and that handling of its records? I haven't.

I am sure most people have a resonable expectation that the phone numbers they call are private, however this may or may not be the case, and that determination will come out in a legitimate court case, not through a web pundit.

Do what you have to do, but if it comes out that this is NOT illegal, and the calls for boycott cost even 1 innocent person their income, thats on those of you who carried it on.

[Misunderestimator]

24. Ok, so why haven't they explained themselves?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/

"The Telecommunications Act of 1934 is as clear as clear can be," plaintiff Carl Mayer said. "You can't turn over the records of your customers and if you do so it's $1,000 per violation. The Constitution is very clear. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Fourth Amendment prevents unlawful searches and seizures which we believe this to be."


And how is it that they justified making the opposite decision as Qwest:

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NjkzNDAyMSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTM=

Telecommunications giant Qwest refused to provide the government with access to telephone records of its 15 million customers after deciding the request, for a secret surveillance program, violated privacy law, a lawyer for a former company executive said Friday. For a second day, the former National Security Agency director defended the spy agency's activities.

[matcom]

25. there is that damned 4th amendment thingy again

i HATE when THAT comes up :eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

26. Niggling little devil, ain't it?

[IA_Seth]

27. Well..

Since I am not "them" I'd have a hard time answering that.

[Misunderestimator]

29. And a boycott might just make them more eager to answer it...

don't you think? Nothing else seems to be making them answer.

[arwalden]

33. They Could Start With An Apology... Followed By An Explanation.

I'm sure it wouldn't do much to protect them from any legal action, but it might help in the PR arena.

Did they cave willingly, did they get bad advice from their own lawyers, or were they coerced?

[IA_Seth]

14. n/t

[IA_Seth]

15. n/t

[WritingIsMyReligion]

38. Ka-ching. We have a winner.

;)

[billyskank]

16. You can use this argument with any corporation

they all employ people, who are blameless for what the management chooses to do. And the worst corporations tend to be the biggest, who employ the largest number of innocent people.

But as consumers the only power we have is to take away our custom. There is absolutely nothing else we can do.

[IA_Seth]

23. But my point is this...

Nothing that has been uncovered this far has been proven to be illegal in a court of law.

Boycotting a business for something that hasn't been proven to be illegal may cost innocent workers their jobs.

Thats all i am sayin.

[billyskank]

28. That's irrelevant.

Loads of corporations do loads of things all the time that aren't illegal, but are immoral or unethical. But your way of thinking says that we should do nothing, because you suggest that people refrain from exercising the only effective lever they possess.

Look at it this way, if Verizon were to go under (highly unlikely) as a result of a mass boycott over this issue, all those customers would resign with another company, who would need employees to service the demand.

[Misunderestimator]

30. Like boycotting a company that does animal testing, because

it's unethical, but not necessarily illegal. What Verizon did is unethical, and boycotts are the only effective method for consumers to object to a company's decisions or practices.

Good point, Billy.

[Hugin]

32. I don't *CARE* if it was illegal or not...

All I'm saying is as a customer.. I DON'T LIKE IT!

I DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES WHO'S PRACTICES I DON'T LIKE.

I represent the customers... If you have a problem with how the
company you work for does business and how it threatens your
livelihood. You need to take it up with them or the Communication
Workers Union.

Saying, that by me doing what is my right to do might cost jobs...
Well, that's extortion. Which incidentally is against the law.

Except for maybe, Junior.

[IA_Seth]

35. Ah yes,

Oh of course I am extorting you.

Main Entry: ex·tort
Pronunciation: ik-'stort
Function: transitive verb
: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : WRING; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument

That is exactly what I am doing.

[Hugin]

36. Sure...

Why else would you be here trying to lay a guilt trip about unemployment.

I pay my FICA and that is what it's for.