[ale] OT: Forget Comcast, I wanna move to Germany!

[jimpop at yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch)]

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:39 -0400, Jeff Lightner wrote:
> It was an illegal request and therefore an illegal collusion IMO.

How is it illegal?  Which law was broken, where is evidence of this?

> Letting the government say "this was between us and a corporation" is
> specious at best. It is "searching" the records that YOU own because it
> is about YOU not about the corporation and this is in fact prohibited.

By what law is it prohibited?  Please be specific.

> The government can't search your home saying "We know some people are
> criminals and by searching all homes we can find who they are".   

There is a law to prevent that, in fact it is in the Constitution.
AT&T's datacenters, on the other hand, are not your home or your
business location.

> The government could bypass all laws by simply using corporations as proxies
> to do so.   

And it appears they have done just that.  Saying that it is bypassing a
law is a stretch, if there is no law to prevent something then it is
perfectly legal to do it.

> What if they decided to make "agreements" with Home Owner's/Condo 
> associations or Apartment Management companies to bypass laws?

It all depends on what your home owners association contract says about
this.  If it isn't specifically disallowed, then it is allowed.

> Wild accusations without facts?  You're implying AT&T did NOT turn over
> records?  

No.  I'm simply stating that turning them over (and still turning them
over) isn't illegal by today's laws.  If it is, quote me the law and
specific id for the law.

> If they didn't then why didn't they deny it like everyone else
> and why did they feel the need to change their policy?

Ahh, I see your vantage point.  Suspicious actions == criminal guilt.
Gotcha.

> You seem to take a lot of umbrage at the suggestion.  Do you have stock
> in AT&T?

None directly, perhaps through some group investment,etc.  But if I did
would that make me less of a concerned citizen then yourself?  ;-)

> I note you also ignored what I said about the discussion not starting
> out as one about "law".   You seem to focus on this because you can't
> challenge the underlying assumption that people you PAY for a service do
> not become the arbiters of information about that service.

No, I just don't have the same expectations, of services that I pay for,
as you do.  That doesn't mean that I'm less upset about the issue, I
just believe that I understand where the remedy needs to best occur.

-Jim P.