AT&T could owe each customer $146,000, I'm collecting my share, are you?

[whistle]

<snip>
AT&T Could Owe You $146,000
FISA violation means $36,500 per claimant, per four years of wiretapping
11:25AM Thursday Feb 21 2008 by Karl

The Legality blog has an interesting read on just how much telecom providers like AT&T could owe their customers should the lawsuit against them for illegal wiretapping be allowed to proceed. While there are more than forty potential suits currently open against Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, the EFF's case against AT&T is the most highly visible, given it involved a 22-year former employee turned whistleblower. If the EFF case proceeds and it shows widespread violation of FISA laws, AT&T would be in some serious financial trouble:

Code provision 50 U.S.C. § 1810 imposes civil liability on any person (or entity) for each violation of FISA. Victims of illegal surveillance are entitled to recover $100 for each day they were wiretapped, or actual damages over $1000, whichever is greater. Additionally, FISA provides compensation for attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation. . . As you may imagine, one hundred dollars per day, per person adds up over four years. If the Hepting lawsuit is successful, AT&T could face damages of over $36,500 per claimant per year. Nearly every person with a computer or phone in the United States could be impacted.

AT&T serves 14.2 million broadband customers and roughly 70 million landline users. If they were forced to pay $146,000 to each landline customer, AT&T could be facing a total legal liability cost of $10,220,000,000,000.


While highly unlikely given AT&T's lobbying & legal prowess, these kind of numbers make it a little more clear why AT&T and Verizon have been spending millions in DC over the past few years in order to get legal immunity for their involvement in these programs. Congress is currently on vacation, but when they return the House will be tasked with deciding whether or not to fight, or support, these companies' request for immunity as they move to renew FISA.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Could-Owe-You-146000-92044

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Sweet! nt

[flyarm]

2. I'll take the check..i would prefer the cash..but a check will do!! eom

[whistle]

9. Bush says, "You gotta give Telecoms immunity, to save my ass!"

:rofl: ....Fuck'em :nopity: :hurts:

[MiniMe]

60. I would prefer a cashiers check or a certified check

I don't want mine to be the one that bounces.

:hide:

[Eurobabe]

3. Damn, and I've been with Vonage since 2003.

:)

[whistle]

24. They all did this shit for money!

[Captain Angry]

4. Well, considering that much money doesn't exist...

And is more than the entire assets of AT&T (not to mention the entire telecom industry), I'm not holding my breath.

[NV Whino]

5. That's all right. I'll settle for half.

[whistle]

25. Great, so will I...but not a dime less

[TahitiNut]

8. I'll get most of mine from Verizon and some from AT&T.

First come, first served. :evilgrin:

[whistle]

13. Ahaaa, double dipping, that's even better...go for it

[kedrys]

71. Our land line and DSL are with AT&T

Cell service from Verizon (both our phones).

The line forms to the left. :evilgrin:

[whistle]

11. Finally, the country is seeing just how fascistic Amerika has become

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. Fuck 'em, they should have thought about that before engaging in illegal activities..

Make them sell every fucking thing they've got and then make the bigwigs who ok'ed the wiretapping work on chain gangs, or for private individuals, until their debt is paid off. Hell, I've got plenty of work for them to do around here, since I'm unable to do it anymore. I'll even take der chimpenfurher here to clear some brush for me...

[Captain Angry]

20. None of it is going to be considered illegal.

They're going to get their immunity. Even if they didn't, the case would be tied up until blanket pardons were issued.

Ask Alaska how well their lawsuit with Exxon is going. Do you think they're ever going to be paid what they were owed + interest + penalties? Nope.

Neither will AT&T.

The entire US telecommunications industry would shut down if a lawsuit went through. No telephones, no internet, all gone.

AT&T's lines carry the data between the satellite link ups, between the backbones, between cellular towers...

This won't happen.

The only alternative would be for the USA to nationalize the phone companies, and bring them all into a government agency. And, isn't that what the Bush Administration has basically done already? They're all private companies today, but they are all working for the government now anyway.

So, no.

[whistle]

22. When did Social Security last sell your private data to fascists?

[Captain Angry]

27. We'll find out soon enough, I'm sure.

I know that Fidelity lost mine when they had a notebook computer stolen out of a car and it had the data of several hundred thousand people on it.

The Social Security Admin has been used to produce fake identification for years, so I have to assume that somebody has sold my data off there too. I have no doubt that there are people with access to millions of records worth of data that can dump them to a spreadsheet on a USB jump drive in under 30 seconds.

[whistle]

31. You know that for a fact? Only if you gave that information away....

...the truth is that the Bush/Cheney fraudulent war in Iraq and Afghanistan now representing over $2.5 trillion in committed funds has eaten away most if not all Social Security surpluses and turned it all over to fascist war profiteers.

[Captain Angry]

40. That's different than what you asked.

You asked if my data was given out.

The money in the Social Security program is another story. That program isn't sustainable, and I knew years ago that I'd never see a dime of it, regardless of who was in office.

You can't have a program that funds retired workers with the deposits of current workers when the age of the population is rising and the birth rate (and wages) aren't keeping pace.

They've spent us into a disaster, and it's going to take some real work to regain our financial standing. Their plan all along was to kill all "entitlement" programs, and get everybody to do their own thing. After all, if you don't have a Social Security program, and you don't know how to invest money for 45 years, you're going to take that money somewhere...

To the #1 donors to their campaign in 2000.

Those two will never suffer the way that they should. They tried awfully hard to get my brother killed by sending him to Iraq twice. Now he has to try and reintegrate into society, find a job and try to get back to normal. Not an easy task when he was carrying a gun on the street just a few months ago.

[whistle]

44. Of course the Bush administration has been an outlaw administration

...so NO IMMUNITY period! That will give people like your brother and thousands of other Iraq/Afghanistan War veterans a fighting chance to get back into society. If Bush gets his way on FISA IMMUNITY then we all loose.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. At the present moment, it's already "considered" illegal, or they wouldn't be

pushing for immunity. They're just trying to cover it up and make it legal after the fact.. like other typical bushtard tactics. Fuck them, fuck their immunity, and send me three of their friggin' CEO's right now, so they can cut my lawn with toenail clippers. I'll be nice and keep them a water cooler filled up for when they get too hot, and I'll let them have two 10 minutes breaks and a 30 minute lunch break.

Get to crackin' and send me my workers, dammit!

[whistle]

28. Put John Edward's law firm to work on a class action suit for the people!

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. I like that idea!

How do we get in touch with him and get him to do it?

[whistle]

38. Start here

http://www.facebook.com/johnedwards

[AzDar]

66. Precisely.

[beezlebum]

6. i'm in!! n/t

[lonestarnot]

7. Tee hee.

One settlement I am lucky enough not to be in on as I told them to kiss my ass a long time ago when I found out Ma Bell was a cheap mother fucker.

[peacetheonlyway]

10. The Telcos (Such as Bellsouth and SBC) are hocked up to their buttes

they have had more debt than revenues for a long time.

that said, I'll be waiting by my mailbox for my check (not!)

[whistle]

16. Bellsouth has been tapping my phone and DSL computer line for years

...then finally AT&T took them over to shelter there ass, I want a class action suit going and I want it now! :nopity:

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Bellsouth & SBC Global now belong to AT&T....

That's why my bellsouth phone and internet service were switched to AT&T without my knowledge and/or consent. I've hated AT&T for a longggg time... and wouldn't have used their services if they paid ME to use them.

Here, go to http://home.bellsouth.net and see where you land....

[whistle]

19. Correct, I was pissed about it but had no choice but to continue if I wanted phone service

[Hestia]

12. Two points about this

1 - this would hurt a lot of hard-working union people (my DH included) who are decidated to the CWA. There would be massive layoff's.

2 - I wonder if SBC knew about this when it bought AT&T (not the other way around)? My DH is pissed that this has happened and is giving AT&T a blackeye as it has. There has already been strike talk April of 2009. This would force a UAW type of contract down workers throats there and they are well paid. Real Middle Class Union Jobs.

I'm not excusing AT&T in shape, form or fashion. Evil is as evil does. This was done before the buyout and would have a large fallout to workers who were/not not involved. This equipment/rooms are not in small cities and towns. In fact, down here, AT&T had to retire of piece of equipment from the 1960s that one person in the whole state knew how to fix and he's retiring. Where DH works, all the wiring is right there, no secret ins and outs (he's looked). This is happening in larger cities where it is easier to hide.

Anyway, I'm conflicted - the larger good against my personal finances and other workers finances. It won't be pretty either way.

[truedelphi]

15. But the workers have home phones don't they?

So wouldn't they have plenty of money to spend - even if they were laid off.

Just sayin'

[whistle]

21. correct and computer lines most of them, plus AT&T fired 40% of organized labor force...

...when they took over Bellsouth flushing those employees benefits down the toilet and into huge executive bonuses

[whistle]

18. Nationalize telecoms then and suck the funds out of the preferred stockholders

....NO IMMUNITY means owners pay for criminal acts!

[kestrel91316]

23. I have TWO AT&T accounts - one for the home phone, and one for

the office phone. But guess what? NO ONE is ever going to get a dime in damages. Don't you know LAWS ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE???

Either that, or there will be a class action lawsuit and I will get two coupons good for $25 off my monthly bill..........

[whistle]

26. John Edwards has been a trial lawyer, let's get him to take on Bush

...and the criminal telecoms

[wtmusic]

29. IMO that is the most likely scenario if immunity goes down

EFF and ACLU will claim victory; drawn-out claims process will flush the issue down the memory hole until paltry consumer discount coupons are issued.

[whistle]

32. Here is a link to a website and videos

http://stopthespying.org/

[alittlelark]

34. I'll take mine in Euros or Reals.

[whistle]

36. Better yets, take it out in gold coins

[momster]

72. Property is Better

I wouldn't mind being given some building the Feds don't use very much...maybe the White House. It's got an excellent location and the present squatter is hardly ever there.

[whistle]

35. Don't let Bush swagger and smirk his way outta this one people!

...NO RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY on FISA illegal wiretaps

[margotb822]

37. When did AT&T buy Cingular Wireless

I knew I saw a decrease in quality. Now I know that it was because my phone was being tapped...

[whistle]

39. Well they took over Bellsouth early last year, I don't know about the

...Cingular Wireless/AT&T take over

[margotb822]

43. Have you noticed a decrease in service?

To me, since AT&T has taken over Cingular, the service has decreased (more dropped calls, fewer bars). I don't really see how this could have happened because Cingular already bought AT&T Wireless. I love the rollover minutes though, so I can't leave!

[whistle]

45. Yes, I had DSL with Bellsouth installed four years ago and it was great

...until the month following the AT&T official take over. It has gone steady down ever since and I still pay the premium rate. My base phone charges also inceased by nearly 45%

[whistle]

41. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) overview website

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/

we must not allow congress to pass any IMMUNITY to telecoms and Bush

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. My this could go a long way towards retirement

:-)

[whistle]

46. Indeed, just put $146,000 into long term high yield CDs and forget about it for 25 years

:toast:

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I was thinking more than a CD but yes

and I wonder, is it for each person in the account? Then we are looking at close to a quarter of a mil...

[whistle]

51. You don't mean the stock market do you? That would be giving it right back

...to the criminals :hurts:

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Not necessarily and a CD does that also

I don't intend to keep my money under my mattress though

And yes, there is responsible investing

[whistle]

48. Wow, almost two years ago John Dean wrote this piece on Bush FISA violations

<snip>
An Update on President Bush's NSA Program: The Historical Context, Specter's Recent Bill, and Feingold's Censure Motion
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Mar. 24, 2006

President George Bush continues to openly and defiantly ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- the 1978 statute prohibiting electronic inspection of Americans' telephone and email communications with people outside the United States without a court-authorized warrant. (According to U.S. News & World Report, the President may also have authorized warrantless break-ins and other physical surveillance, such as opening regular mail, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.)

Bush's position is that he does not need Congressional approval for his measures. Even he does not claim that Congress gave him express power to undertake them, but he does claim that Congress indirectly approved such measures when it authorized the use of force to go after those involved in the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. He also argues that, in any event, approval was not necessary - for he argues that he has such authority under Article II of the Constitution, as the chief executive, and Commander in Chief, charged with faithfully executing the laws of the land and protecting the Constitution.



These arguments are hauntingly familiar to this observer.

The Nixon Precedent

No one can question President Bush's goal: Protecting Americans from further terror attacks. But every American should question his means: Openly defying a longstanding statute that prohibits the very actions he insists on undertaking, when done in the very manner he insists upon doing them.

In some two hundred and seventeen years of the American presidency, there has been only one President who provides a precedent for Bush's stunning, in-your-face, conduct: Richard Nixon. Like Bush, Nixon claimed he was acting to protect the nation's security. Like Bush, Nixon broke the law - authorizing, among other things, illegal wiretaps.

Ironically, a stronger case might be made for Nixon's warrantless wiretaps, than for Bush's. Nixon's were installed to track leaks of national security information relating to the war in Vietnam. (He never found the leaker.) He pursued domestic intelligence by illegal means because he believed - based on information from President Lyndon Johnson - that communists had infiltrated the anti-war movement. (No such evidence was ever found.) In addition, he believed that extreme measures were necessary to deal with domestic terrorists, who were responsible for hundreds of deadly bombings. (This is the same argument Bush makes today.)

Nixon also claimed he was only doing what his predecessors had done. That was not untrue - but what had, in the past, been the exception to the rule became standard operating procedure under Nixon.

Bush, however, can only claim one predecessor for his actions: Nixon. And, of course, he has not made this claim - for Nixon was forced from office because of his defiance of the law.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060324.html

NO IMMUNITY now or ever for Bush and the telecoms!!!!

[truedelphi]

59. Thank you for posting this. n/t

[whistle]

62. yw

[whistle]

49. Bush can and should be impeached for the FISA violations

<snip>
Bush Conducted Illegal Wiretaps of American Citizens

Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.

2003 - Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation's FF's lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a "splitter" that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From "Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room", Wired News, 4/7/06
12/15/05 - The New York Times reveals that "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials." The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.

Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the "Armed Forces". HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires "The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3". Congress was not notified of these wiretaps.

Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says "We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect." Then later "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two." The distinction is that "detecting" requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like "bomb" in Arabic, or maybe even "impeach Bush" in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine.

More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War," on page 303. " Bush summarized his strategy: 'Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.'"

James B. Comey, acting Attorney General, refused to sign an authorization for the NSA program because it "did not comply with the law". On March 10th, 2004, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to bypass Comey be getting a disoriented John Ashcroft to sign an authorization from his hospital bed. Comey rushed to the hospital to stop them.

On March 11th, Bush intervened personally to get the Justice Department to authorize the program.
Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway.

Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.
According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists. But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.

8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional.

8/19/07 - New York Times says "Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records..."

<MORE>

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/wiretaps.html

[Historic NY]

50. I'll take mine in euro's right away.N/t

[whistle]

52. Euros are hyperinflating just like the U.S. dollar

[goclark]

53. Give me the money ~ please nt

[Lugnut]

54. Hell, yeah.

Where do I sign up to get my check?

[Control-Z]

55. So, I have 2 lines with AT&T -

one phone/dsl line, and one fax, and until I switched my provider a year ago I also had 4 Sprint accounts. Have I finally hit the jackpot?

[whistle]

63. Sounds like it, as long as democrats don't cave to the telecoms lobbyists

...and BushCo by granting retroactive immunity

[aquart]

56. I was Worldnet till just recently. I'll take some of that.

Take it from the CEO's pocket.

[FirstLight]

58. You can keep the gold, CD's or whatever "paper" money ...

I have my eye on a piece of land, and get my little community/farm going! :hippie:

...and yes, I would be growing FOOD...and maybe some medicinal plants :eyes:


Problem is, this isn't a realistic idea. But it IS a nice distraction and pleasant dream, to keep us from freaking out any more over the pillaging of our civil liberties. I like a break from the angst now & then, for sure!

[whistle]

65. Maybe not so unrealistic as this has Dubya's balls in a vise and for

...the first time in nearly eight years this ass-wipe is sweating buckets of fear. Congress must NOT GIVE IMMUNITY to the telecoms and by default to Dubya :yoiks:

[ixion]

61. I'll very gleefully send Verizon a bill... that's much better than 600 bucks

and would go a long way to ending the recession! :woohoo:

[whistle]

64. Bingo

[Vinca]

67. I'm in - where do we sign up?

:rofl:

[sellitman]

68. iPhones for everyone!

:party:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

69. K&R! n/t

[KharmaTrain]

70. After Lawyers Fees...Taxes...And Waiting A Million Years...

I read that article yesterday and am curious how this expert came up with that exact number.

Unfortunately we probably will never be able to bring these eavesdroppers to justice as the Democrats in the House are all but set to cave again.

If immunity is granted, the word needs to be spread far and wide that if you use AT&T and Verizon or any of the other companies that sold out our liberties is likely to be spying on you...your phone calls, email and billing records. As we see whisper campaigns can be quite effective. It'd be interesting to see the Verizon dude change his saying to "I am listening to you now...good".

[wryter2000]

73. ROFL

I'm loving it. Where do I get in line for my check?

[crimsonblue]

74. From what I've seen, AT&T and Verizon don't give a shit abt immunity

probably because they likely already have agreements in place for the government to take their place in lawsuits. The Telecoms have the smartest lawyers in the world, and wouldn't agree to contracts without covering their bases. Nor would they let the government spy without warrants without contracts-- hence being paid (and subsequently turning the taps off after bills went unpaid). Now call me crazy, but I'm pretty surethat when using a legal FISA warrant, the government doesn't have to pay the companies more than a dime over labor and transaction costs. It is NOT supposed to be a money makign scheme. Hmm, maybe that's the illegal angle.. Telecoms literally selling out privacy... Nothing short of Jesus descending from heaven to vouch for the telecoms will surprise me at this point.