Well we knew it [NSA database] was illegal: 47 U.S.C. §1002(a(2))

The definitions section of the law:
The term “call-identifying information” means dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of each communication generated or received by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a telecommunications carrier.

(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier—
(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains,
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00001002----000-.html

The USA Today article specifically said no lawful authorization was given and no warrant was presented for the information:
"Among the controversies over the database, however, is that it was built without court warrants or the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges established to issue secret warrants, according to people with direct knowledge of the arrangement."

Only the beautiful thing here is that tens of millions of people have standing to sue the phone companies. This is going to be a very big deal. This is unlike the other program, wherein people didn't know they were being spied on. Here people are sure if they're customers of any of the companies that sold their information to the government they are affected.

Woohoo, we might finally have gotten those jerks!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:thumbsup:

Good research! :thumbsup:

I'm so there. I've always wanted to own a phone company.

User-pwned. May be the fastest path to regulation.

The one in the presidential signing statment, or in the Iraq War Resolution, or inherent in Article ii of the constitution. Give Gonzo a day or two to specify any and all. And why do you side with terrorists.

My state -- Texas -- removed any right to sue telecoms for this in 2003.

See this thread (and consider giving it a nomination perhaps?):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1166236&mesg_id=1166236

The law to let telecoms off the hook for complying with requests from the government to provide "electronic surveillance". Specifically it states that consumers have no recourse -- no "cause of action against the carrier or service, its officers, employees, or agents."

I bet they've passed similar laws in other states -- that's standard operating procedure for the GOP.

One is, pre-emption. The federal statute either gives a right of an individual to sue, or it doesn't. If it does, then the states can't stop it due to federal supremacy. If it doesn't, then the state law isn't an issue.

Two is, the quoted portions are more of a requirement to help the governemnt. Only by negative implication can anyone say it should be read as "and ONLY help the government if it's lawful." There's got to be something else.

Looking at the section, it's clear that it's setting forth the tech requirements to HELP the government in a lawful demand for data. It can only be broken by the company if the company doesnt meet the tech requirements. It's got no other requirement or prohibition whatsover.
:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00001002----000-.html

EMPHASIS ADDED
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and sections 1007 (a) and 1008 (b) and (d) of this title, *A TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER SHALL ENSURE THAT ITS EQUIPMENT*, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications *ARE CAPABLE OF*—
(1) expeditiously isolating and *ENABLING THE GOVERNMENT*, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber’s equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government;
(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier—

Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this chapter, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this chapter punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

keep equipment that is able to help the government if it makes a lawful request. Nothing else is required or prohibited there. You have to find it somewhere else.

Why would someone put a requirement for a warrant or other lawful authorization in a law, and then not enforce it?

47 U.S.C. § 229. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act compliance
Release date: 2006-01-11

(a) In general
The Commission shall prescribe such rules as are necessary to implement the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act <47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.>.
(b) Systems security and integrity
The rules prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include rules to implement section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act <47 U.S.C. 1004> that require common carriers—
(1) to establish appropriate policies and procedures for the supervision and control of its officers and employees—
(A) to require appropriate authorization to activate interception of communications or access to call-identifying information; and
(B) to prevent any such interception or access without such authorization;
(2) to maintain secure and accurate records of any interception or access with or without such authorization; and
(3) to submit to the Commission the policies and procedures adopted to comply with the requirements established under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(c) Commission review of compliance
The Commission shall review the policies and procedures submitted under subsection (b)(3) of this section and shall order a common carrier to modify any such policy or procedure that the Commission determines does not comply with Commission regulations. The Commission shall conduct such investigations as may be necessary to insure compliance by common carriers with the requirements of the regulations prescribed under this section.
(d) Penalties
For purposes of this chapter, a violation by an officer or employee of any policy or procedure adopted by a common carrier pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or of a rule prescribed by the Commission pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, shall be considered to be a violation by the carrier of a rule prescribed by the Commission pursuant to this chapter.
(e) Cost recovery for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act compliance
(1) Petitions authorized
A common carrier may petition the Commission to adjust charges, practices, classifications, and regulations to recover costs expended for making modifications to equipment, facilities, or services pursuant to the requirements of section 103 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act <47 U.S.C. 1002>.
(2) Commission authority
The Commission may grant, with or without modification, a petition under paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that such costs are reasonable and that permitting recovery is consistent with the public interest. The Commission may, consistent with maintaining just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in connection with the provision of interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio by a common carrier, allow carriers to adjust such charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(3) Joint board
The Commission shall convene a Federal-State joint board to recommend appropriate changes to part 36 of the Commission’s rules with respect to recovery of costs pursuant to charges, practices, classifications, and regulations under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

47 U.S.C. § 1004. Systems security and integrity
Release date: 2006-01-11

A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.

I am retarded and was grasping for straws. The section I finally found is the requirement for a warrant, it was actually in the post "Well..."

Sorry.
:dunce:

It doesn't require that the gov request be lawful or place burdens or restrictions on the info to be divulged. Not in Section 1002.

If someone asks, "we need to get equipment that can get tel numbers....how sophisticated does it have to be, how well does it have to work", the answer is, "good enough so the government can get the information if it asks for it,", and the someone asks, "you mean, our systems are illegal if comply if joe nobody calls from the police department and says, 'give me the info in five minutes' and there's no way that's technically possible?

And the answer is, "the equipment has to be good enough to comply with lawful requests, not unlawful demands like that."

as the post below relates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2621769&mesg_id=2621769

then the offshoring and outsourcing of the NSA datamining and analysis is illegal, being done under cover of 'legal' entities and business practices outside authorized channels capable of legal oversight.