- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
:thumbsup:
This is so awesome. I really dont have much commentary except this is a HUGE victory for us. Keep the pendulum swinging in this direction! (two stories)
AT&T Could Owe You $146,000 - FISA violation means $36,500 per claimant, per four years of wiretapping
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.
Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping (Again) Class action lawsuit springs up in DC
Last November a California man filed suit against Comcast for the company's traffic shaping practices, which involve forging TCP packets in order to throttle upstream p2p traffic. While Comcast insisting their brand of network management is "reasonable" might thwart the FCC's investigation into the practice, the courts may see things differently. A second, class-action lawsuit has sprung up in Washington DC.
According to a statement from the law firm involved, Comcast is misleading customers by saying they offer the "fastest Internet connection," because the ISP "intentionally blocks or impedes its customer's access to peer-to-peer file sharing." We're actually (almost) starting to feel bad for Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas, who has been forced to repeat the same stock quote to hundreds of news outlets by now (including us):
"To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," said Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas. Douglas said that a minority of their customers use peer-to-peer. "Sometimes we have to delay [the sharing] because of the volume of it," Douglas said, so that the rest of the company's customers aren't affected by the network being bogged down by peer-to-peer.
Comcast isn't commenting publicly on any lawsuits they're facing.
This is so awesome. I really dont have much commentary except this is a HUGE victory for us. Keep the pendulum swinging in this direction! (two stories)
AT&T Could Owe You $146,000 - FISA violation means $36,500 per claimant, per four years of wiretapping
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.
Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping (Again) Class action lawsuit springs up in DC
Last November a California man filed suit against Comcast for the company's traffic shaping practices, which involve forging TCP packets in order to throttle upstream p2p traffic. While Comcast insisting their brand of network management is "reasonable" might thwart the FCC's investigation into the practice, the courts may see things differently. A second, class-action lawsuit has sprung up in Washington DC.
According to a statement from the law firm involved, Comcast is misleading customers by saying they offer the "fastest Internet connection," because the ISP "intentionally blocks or impedes its customer's access to peer-to-peer file sharing." We're actually (almost) starting to feel bad for Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas, who has been forced to repeat the same stock quote to hundreds of news outlets by now (including us):
"To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," said Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas. Douglas said that a minority of their customers use peer-to-peer. "Sometimes we have to delay [the sharing] because of the volume of it," Douglas said, so that the rest of the company's customers aren't affected by the network being bogged down by peer-to-peer.
Comcast isn't commenting publicly on any lawsuits they're facing.
Facebook
Twitter