Verizon Says It Has A First Amendment Right To Illegally Give Your Call Records To The Government

from the that's-an-interesting-way-to-look-at-things dept

The nation's biggest telcos are working hard to make the lawsuits against them for passing customer call records and other info to the government as part of its program of warrantless wiretaps disappear. AT&T's argument that it was just following government orders didn't wash with a judge, and now Verizon is claiming that its passing of information to the government is protected by the First Amendment. Yes, you read that correctly: it says the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is unconstitutional, and the information it passed to the government -- in apparent violation of it, and to comply with the sort of warrantless surveillance the ECPA was designed to prevent -- is constitutionally protected free speech. This seems tenuous at best, but it fits with Verizon's MO. The company always tries to whitewash its customer data leaks by filing lawsuits and trying to shift the blame onto pretexters and information brokers, and making the problem appear to be solely these people's activities, rather than its own inability to protect customer data. Likewise in this case, it contends that it's done nothing wrong, and that the ECPA makes the mistake of trying to prevent free speech, rather than putting restrictions on the government's ability to ask for the information. Of course, those restrictions exist (in the form of having to get a warrant), but didn't really work so well here. Verizon's complicity seems pretty obvious and its free-speech claims look like little more than a hail-mary attempt to shirk liability for disclosing the customer information. That may not be necessary, though, if the Bush administration's attempts to get Congress to pass a law giving the telcos immunity from these sorts of lawsuits are successful.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    reed, 7 May 2007 @ 6:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhh-huh

    "I think I have to agree. I think that absolute zealots (can't think for themselves) might misread my messages. I truly "

    There is no misreading, you are on the fence on whether we should give up more freedom for protection. My rant (which was rather silly) was just about highlighting the steps we would need to take in order to "protect" America.

    "I really have to think that 9/11, Columbine, Virginia tech, etc are statistical non events and we should deal with them when they come but I find it hard to give up freedom to prevent them."

    Very rational thought here. Statistically 9/11 was a anomaly of terrorism across the world. Terrorism has been about the same statistically for many years up until our invasion of the Middle East (Which many have argued greatly increased terrorism worldwide)

    "At the same time I wonder if I am inhuman for suggesting that type of thing."

    The only inhuman thing is to think you could put the ultimate authority over life and death in any one man's hands. That is what terrorism is in my book.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.