Archive for Verizon

Big Brother’s Minions are watching: Cell phone companies retain info on you for up to 7 years

Posted in Big Brother, Privacy with tags , , , , , , , , , , on September 30, 2011 by saynsumthn

Posted 9/30/11

WASHINGTON (WLS) – A leaked document from the Justice Department intended for law enforcement officials describes the length of time major cellphone companies retain sensitive customer data, including text message details and content.

Wired magazine reported that T-Mobile keeps a list of users’ text message recipients for up to five years and AT&T for up to seven years, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ) document dated August 2010.

Wired lists the retention periods of other carriers’ data, such as who keeps call detail records the longest (AT&T: up to seven years) and post-paid bill copies the longest (AT&T and Sprint: up to seven years).

Verizon Wireless is the only carrier that keeps text contents, although for three to five days.

The document, entitled “Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers,” was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union in North Carolina through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Jeffrey Nelson, a Verizon Wireless spokesman, said in an email to ABC News that the company would not comment on the details in the report.

But, he said, “Verizon Wireless keeps data for various periods of time in order to provide services to our customers, including responding to customer inquiries about their own accounts. We take the privacy of our customers very seriously, and have policies and procedures in place to safeguard customer information.”

Mark Siegel, a spokesman for AT&T, said the company addresses data retention in its privacy policy. AT&T’s privacy policy states the company retains personal information (including name, address, telephone number, email address, Social Security number and financial account number) “only as long as needed for business, tax or legal purposes, after which we destroy it by making it unreadable or undecipherable.”

Its privacy policy says it may provide personal information to non-AT&T companies or other third parties for purposes such as responding to 911 calls and other emergencies; complying with court orders and other legal process; assisting with identity verification, and to prevent fraud and identity theft; enforcing AT&T’s agreements and property rights; and “obtaining payment for products and services that appear on your AT&T billing statements, including the transfer or sale of delinquent accounts to third parties for collection.”

Jason Gertzen, a spokesman for Sprint, said the company “respects and protects the privacy and security of the personal information of our customers.”

“Responding to public safety or law enforcement requests is not unique to Sprint. We act as good stewards of our customers’ personal information while also meeting our obligations to law enforcement agencies,” he said in an email to ABC News. “Different categories of data are retained for varying lengths of time depending on the type and sensitivity of data, the applicable laws and regulations governing the retention of such data and the business purpose of the data.”
ABC News Radio contributed to this report.

Congressional Black Caucus, Blue Dogs Join Conservatives to Oppose Internet Regulations ( Net Neutrality)

Posted in free speech, Net Neutrality with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2009 by saynsumthn

(CNSNews.com) –
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Two groups of House Democrats that are not always on the same political page have joined forces to oppose federal regulation of Internet traffic currently under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC is moving forward with plans to approve “net neutrality,” rules that essentially would prohibit Internet service providers from charging add-on fees to certain Web sites for accessing their networks. Advocates of net neutrality argue that without new rules, a duopoly of cable and telephone companies can “discriminate” against certain Web content.

But 72 House Democrats, all members of either the centrist Blue Dog Caucus or the more liberal Congressional Black Caucus, signed a letter to the FCC charging that “net neutrality” regulations would stifle competition.

We remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance, and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve,” the members of each caucus said in a joint letter to the FCC last Thursday.

Opponents of the regulations say the rules would likely slow down the Web, make it tougher to block spam, create the need for more government bureaucrats as new bureaucratic rules tend to require, and discourage investment in broadband technology.

Democrats such as Reps. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Henry Waxman of California have supported the regulation. Republicans have mostly led the opposition, with Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Charles Grassley of Iowa writing a letter to the FCC last week cautioning against the regulation.

But the letter from Democratic House members last week used some of the same arguments Republicans have advanced.

A decade ago, broadband was a nascent service, and only one percent of U.S. households connected to the Internet through broadband lines,” the letter from Democratic lawmakers said. “Today, by contrast, roughly two-thirds of Americans connect through high speed connections that are available to 95 percent of households.”

Signatories included prominent Democrats such as Reps. Health Shuler of North Carolina, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Bernie Thompson of Mississippi, Baron Hill of Indiana, Ed Towns of New York, Silvestre Reyes of Texas, and Alcee Hastings of Florida.

While we have further to go as a nation in extending the benefits of broadband to all, it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach,” the letter continued.

Supporters of net neutrality rules include the left-wing MoveOn.org and the media reform group Free Press. Opponents include the pro-free market group Freedom Works and the conservative Family Research Council.

Primarily, the battle lines are drawn between ISPs such as Verizon and AT&T that want the freedom to charge fees to high volume Web sites to expedite connection speed, and major Web companies such as Google or Amazon.com that have a lot of traffic but want to avoid paying those fees.

The letter from the CBC and the Blue Dogs sparked anger from net neutrality supporters such as Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a liberal advocacy group on digital issues. She accused them of betraying their constituents.

It’s a pity that 72 members of the Blue Dog Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus are deserting one of the fundamental planks of President Obama’s platform — a free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet,” Sohn said in a statement.

The people who those members of Congress represent are the most at risk from the closed, controlling Internet that the phone and cable companies want,” Sohn continued.

The constituents of these members of Congress have the fewest choices of providers and access to the least competition. They have the lowest Internet data speeds; they have the diminished opportunity to use the Web to its fullest potential. They are being betrayed,” she said.

Speaking to the Brookings Institute on Sept. 21, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stressed the need for net neutrality rules.

I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet,” Genachowski said.

In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet,” he added.

But FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell strongly disagreed, saying there is no need for new Internet regulation.

The premise outlined in Chairman Genachowski’s speech is that the Internet is broken and the government has to fix it,” McDowell told a gathering at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week.

For the average consumer, are they being frustrated in some way, other than their broadband speed is too slow?” McDowell said. “Can they go to any site and download anything they want? For the vast majority of consumers, the answer is yes.

So if you want to envision a place where the Internet helps foster democracy, where it helps foster prosperity, where it can be a tool for raising the human condition, in a free and open manner, if you want to envision that, I think that exists today,” he added.

Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon Wireless argue that technological innovation is putting more and more pressure on bandwidth capabilities. As more people demand more services, such as streaming video at greater speed, the ISPs have to make more financial investments for Internet infrastructure.

The sites that tend to clog up the information highway the most – those with high volume – are most likely to be asked to pay an add-on fee to the ISP if there are no net neutrality rules.

Instead of passing the costs of those investments to the customer, the big ISPs could ask Google or Microsoft to pay extra for the use of its network. That’s because Google and similar high volume Web sites use more bandwidth than smaller sites. These high volume sites, thus, could slow connections speeds for users accessing other lower-traffic Web sites.

On the other hand, if a net neutrality regulation or law is passed, the ISP could not recoup more of those costs from Google, Microsoft or other tech giants. So the cost of adding lanes to the information highway would be passed on to consumers.

Advocates of net neutrality point to three major instances of what they consider abuse by the cable and telephone companies.

In 2004, the North Carolina telephone company, Madison River Communications, blocked its customers from using the popular Internet telephone service Vonage. Vonage complained to the FCC, and almost immediately the commission stepped in. Madison River paid a $15,000 fine to the FCC to settle the matter and vowed to stop blocking Vonage or any other competitors.

In September 2007, Verizon Wireless rejected a request from the NARAL Pro Choice America for a five-digit “short code.” These codes allow users interested in hearing messages from a business, movement, or politician to sign up and receive free text messages. The reason Verizon gave for the refusal is that it “does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs.”

Upon reversing itself, Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson told The New York Times that the policy imposed in this instance resulted from an “incorrect interpretation” of a policy “designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.” Nelson said. “The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect.”

In late 2007, Comcast slowed the traffic for some subscribers who were downloading large files that were clogging the network. BitTorrent, creator of a popular file sharing program, allows users to exchange these big files on the Web. Those big files use a lot of capacity, which slows down other Web traffic.

To tackle this problem, Comcast slowed down the transmission of the big files shared on BitTorrent. This allowed its other traffic to move more quickly, but BitTorrent complained.

Comcast and BitTorrent worked out an agreement in April 2008, without a government solution, which allowed file-sharers to use Comcast’s network and not slow down the service for other users. However, the FCC still ordered Comcast to stop blocking or slowing files. Comcast is appealing the FCC order in federal court.

The three cases cited time and time again were resolved,” McDowell told CNSNews.com. “There are an incredible number of net communications every day. If we are looking at any misconduct, whether it’s intentional or not, as soon as the spotlight is shined on them, it would go away. We have more and more competition.

“If there is a bad actor out there acting in an anti-competitive way, then consumers would have a choice of other Internet providers,” McDowell added.

What is net neutrality? What is unbiased Journalism?

Posted in Abortion, birth control, Black Genocide, Constitution, Eugenics, Evolution, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Sterilization, Uncategorized, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2009 by saynsumthn

The Washington Post has reported :

WASHINGTON POST: Rulers of the Internet

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is a concept that all services and content on the Internet should be treated equally. Proposed new rules would seek to prevent Internet service providers from acting as gatekeepers.

Examples of how Internet service providers and wireless phone providers have allegedly acted as gatekeepers of services:

— Comcast allegedly blocked a video-and-music sharing site called BitTorrent.

— Verizon Wireless allegedly rejected a text messaging program from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion-rights group. The program would have allowed people to sign up for text messages from NARAL.

— The FCC is examining whether AT&T and Apple deliberately blocked Google’s voice application for the iPhone. Google Voice gives users one phone number that they can connect to their home, office and mobile phones.

— Skype has complained that many wireless service providers have rejected its Internet voice service. For example, iPhone users can’t connect to the 3G network and use Skype; they must also be linked to the Web through a WiFi connection.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NEWSFLASH – Washington Post:

YouTube has been censoring pro-life videos for a while and I do not see them in your list above.

To name one instance – YouTube censored the Undercover Videos of Lila Rose and yes, James O’Keefe ( ACORN Film maker) who proved that the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider, Planed Parenthood, who sucks over $1 Millions Dollars PER DAY and $350 Millions Dollars PER YEAR from the taxpayer, is covering for statutory rape and possible sexual abuse of minors.

According to Lila’s Live Action Films, “YouTube has unfairly censored two Live Action videos in what appears to be an act of discrimination against our viewpoint. We have carefully laid out the case below why each video that was removed was wrongly banned. We hope you read this and join us in action against this bias.”

Live Action Petition to YouTube:

Dear YouTube:

We are concerned that YouTube staff is censoring videos based on ideology, despite YouTube’s claim to uphold fair standards.

The following links provide the background and case why YouTube should restore our videos:

The Case Against YouTube’s Removal of Live Action’s “Alabama Investigative Video
http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/youtube/83

The Case Against YouTube’s Removal of Live Action’s “Planned Parenthood Counseling Lie
http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/youtube/84

We ask that YouTube will restore their customer’s trust and live up to its own rules by doing the following:

1. Promptly reinstate both banned videos

2. Remove the “strike” against the account “liveactionfilms”

3. Assure Live Action and the YouTube’s community that YouTube is
truly opposed to ideological censorship and is taking steps to prevent this from happening again.

4. Provide Live Action with an email and phone contact representative at YouTube to ensure that any potential future issues are resolved promptly

Sincerely,
-The Undersigned
Sign Petition Here:

In one of the Video’s, Live Action gave this timeline:

HISTORY
June 30th, 2009: Live Action uploads the “Alabama Investigative Video
July 8th, 2009: YouTube notifies Live Action via email that they are going to remove our video within 48 hours if we do not remove it.
July 9th, 2009: Live Action replies to the YouTube email saying that “...we are requesting for you to let us know exactly where in our video we violate the privacy of an individual.” (see full email)
July 10th, 2009: YouTube removes the “Alabama Investigative Video”
July 22nd, 2009: YouTube still has not responded to Live Action over this matter.

YOUTUBE’S STANDARD

YouTube does not permit video that shows the identifiable face or full name of an individual per their policy listed below. We have uploaded many investigative videos (that are still live) where we have obscured the face and disclosed only the clinic workers last name. In all of these cases, YouTube has allowed these videos to remain live.

WHY THE VIDEO MEETS YOUTUBE’S STANDARD

We did not disclose audio or video that “uniquly identifies” the person in the video. We did not show any identifiable images, in fact, our video showed no images of any persons that did not give consent to be in the video. The audio in the video does not by voice or content of the voice, uniquly identifiy the person involved. Finally, no full names were disclosed, only first names as was consistent with our pervious (and still live) videos which have received hundreds of thousands of views without removal.

BE PART OF THE SOLUTION!

Contact YouTube and ask them why the “LiveActionFilms” video was removed.
YouTube web form. (select Video removal)

YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
Phone: +1 650-253-0000 or 650-343-2960
Fax: +1 650-253-0001

Press can ask YouTube about this at: press@youtube.com

And you may want to notify the Washington Post as well.

Learn More about Planned Parenthood with this stunning Documentary: Maafa21