Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

reACTIONary

(7,172 posts)
59. There are various laws and regulations prohibiting and restricting...
Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:48 PM
Dec 2013

...what telecoms may and may not do with the business records and other information they collect about their customers and their activities.

Here is some summary information: https://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php

This is done under the government's power to regulate commerce, and does not, strictly speaking, fall under the fourth amendment. It isn't constitutional / fundamental law, it is positive law enacted by congress like any other law regulating consumer affairs.

This goes back to the Communications Act of 1934. The act of 1934 was amended by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986), Telecommunications Act (1996) Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI).

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986) (ECPA) specifically responded to the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith v. Maryland (June 1979) that telephone toll records are not private and restricts law enforcement access to transactional information pertaining to users of electronic communication services.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and Patriot Act of 2001 narrowed but did not eliminate the CCPA privacy provisions.

Section 551 and Section 222 cover the current privacy provisions, according to the Justice Dept.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

this is so sad I wonder what they have on the judge. nt littlewolf Dec 2013 #1
A previous Pauley ruling on DU: "Oh... This Is Rich... Literally... Goldman Sachs Wins Again..." deurbano Dec 2013 #4
LOL, They have the SCOTUS prescidents "on him"... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #20
They "have" a 1979 SCOTUS ruling jeff47 Dec 2013 #23
this blunt tool works, just don't ask us to provide evidence that it does work frylock Dec 2013 #2
Can you think of a reason why the evidence may not be furnished? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #5
i would venture to guess, by the shifting stories of how many attacks the program has prevented.. frylock Dec 2013 #7
You may need to think on more simple paths. Inasmuch as this involves national security reasons Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #13
and yet folks on the intel committee state that there is zero evidence of prevented attacks.. frylock Dec 2013 #17
Who has stated this, I have seen this ask for and it was not given but not there there is Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #26
Udall, Wyden Call On National Security Agency Director to Clarify Comments.. frylock Dec 2013 #29
Let me remind you, this information is collected by providers, it is passed to NSA through Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #30
and this has fuckall to do with the claims of Wyden and Udall? frylock Dec 2013 #31
When has national security been required to reveal classified information to the general Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #61
uhhh.. the classified intel has been revealed to wyden and udall.. frylock Dec 2013 #65
Uhhhhh..... jeff47 Dec 2013 #40
video at link questionseverything Dec 2013 #67
Lovely wishful thinking. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2013 #68
This is the same guy who ruled for Goldman Sachs jsr Dec 2013 #3
That's One Corrupt Judge billhicks76 Dec 2013 #9
Appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton. But keep the ruling in perspective, he didn't say 24601 Dec 2013 #6
BLACKMAIL!!! billhicks76 Dec 2013 #8
Sure, it's not like there's an on-point 1979 SCOTUS ruling or anything. jeff47 Dec 2013 #25
There is no on point ruling. Congress could make this illegal quite easily. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #33
Those aren't contradictory statements. jeff47 Dec 2013 #34
If they aren't analyzing the data, JDPriestly Dec 2013 #35
Because there's 7 billion people who aren't Americans. jeff47 Dec 2013 #37
If they want to search my data, they need to serve ME with a warrant. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #47
It isn't your data. jeff47 Dec 2013 #58
+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #52
To keep a history of that data so it CAN be analyzed - **UNDER COURT ORDER** ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #38
+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #53
Yes!!! And when the government does ANYTHING to enforce the law... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #51
So If... billhicks76 Dec 2013 #46
No, it wouldn't be OK, because... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #54
Am I wrong? billhicks76 Dec 2013 #56
There are various laws and regulations prohibiting and restricting... reACTIONary Dec 2013 #59
BTW, Welcome to DU !!! (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #62
It would be legal. jeff47 Dec 2013 #60
+10 (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #50
Lawful? Fuck Off! The fix was apparently in. As if Al Qaeda doesn't encrypt already n/t. davidlynch Dec 2013 #10
I'm very interested to see how you encrypt the phone number you are dialing. (nt) jeff47 Dec 2013 #24
Off to the SCOTUS. Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #11
"this blunt tool only works because it collects everything"... grasswire Dec 2013 #12
What evidence? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #14
Right. It's "lack of evidence" grasswire Dec 2013 #16
Just because they do not give you evidence does not mean it does not exist, it simply means Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #28
"Works" as in "is legal". jeff47 Dec 2013 #19
One court has said it is "likely illegal" iandhr Dec 2013 #15
Private citizens (cpmpanies) acting at the behest of the police eggplant Dec 2013 #18
Except they are not collecting the data for the government jeff47 Dec 2013 #21
Sold to third parties and subpoenaed in court - e.g. divorce proceedings. (nt) reACTIONary Dec 2013 #55
As I read it, snot Dec 2013 #22
The question has to be worded differently mitty14u2 Dec 2013 #36
How do you think the people owns the phone companies, etc? Thinkingabout Dec 2013 #27
Uh MarcoS Dec 2013 #32
If only there wasn't a 1979 SCOTUS precedent on this topic... jeff47 Dec 2013 #39
You are not the Supreme Court... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #41
It's our Senate's pronouncement not mine, MarcoS Dec 2013 #48
They *FUND* the NSA ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #63
Every one of our Constitutional rights is limited. OilemFirchen Dec 2013 #43
911 powers were supposed to be temporary MarcoS Dec 2013 #49
"Just another brick in the wall..." blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #42
It does not apply to third parties treestar Dec 2013 #44
Kick n/t Tx4obama Dec 2013 #45
Looks like SCOTUS will get the case.. DCBob Dec 2013 #57
Whole lot of personal opinion in this ruling brentspeak Dec 2013 #64
I have a question for the lawyers out there lovuian Dec 2013 #66
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge Rules N.S.A. Phone ...»Reply #59