<div>I would not grant Verizon, or any corporation involved in phone or Internet communication, assess to any personal information that I seriously need to protect. Encryption or anonymity are options. I assume any communication over phone or Internet is possibly compromised, given the behavior of major US corporations in wholesale violations of US citizens Fourth Amendment rights in recent years</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Large scale accessing of personal information by (judges, warrants and the Fourth Amendment are impediments blocking intel on terrorists, of course) the FBI has been granted to Verizon and other corporations, which is why they were seeking retroactive immunity from prosecution for complicity with government "spying:"</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8622">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8622</a></div>
<div><br> </div>
<p class="p4" align="justify">According to whistleblower <a href="http://www.themediaconsortium.com/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/affidavit-bp-final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span class="s2"><b><font color="#003399">Babak Pasdar</font></b></span></a>, a telecom carrier he worked for as a security consultant, subsequently named as Verizon by the <i>Post</i>, said the company maintained a high-speed DS-3 digital line that allowed the Bureau and other security agencies "unfettered" access to the carrier's wireless network, including billing records and customer data "transmitted wirelessly."</p>
<p class="p4" align="justify">---------------</p>
<p class="p4" align="justify"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101041.html?nav=rss_technology">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101041.html?nav=rss_technology</a></p>
<p>As part of a surveillance package approved Thursday by the Senate intelligence committee, some telecommunications companies would be granted immunity from about 40 pending lawsuits that allege they violated Americans' privacy and constitutional rights by aiding a warrantless surveillance program instituted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. </p>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/21/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Art Deco</b> <<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">Forget that the victim is Obama. But if you or I accessed someone's Verizon account, we'd be open to having criminal charges filed against us. What's the difference between an unauthorized Verizon employee accessing an account and you or I accessing that account? Why isn't Verizon asking for criminal charges? This certainly reduces my confidence in Verizon's protecting my personal data.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">W.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><strong><font size="5">Verizon Staff Viewed Obama's Account<br></font></strong>
<p><font size="-1">By Cecilia Kang<br>Washington Post Staff Writer<br>Friday, November 21, 2008; A08<br></font></p>
<p></p>
<p><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Verizon+Communications+Inc.?tid=informline" target="_blank">Verizon Wireless</a> said last night that a number of its employees have "accessed and viewed" President-elect <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline" target="_blank">Barack Obama</a>'s personal cellphone account without authorization.</p>
<p>The company said all employees who accessed the account -- whether they were authorized to or not -- were immediately put on leave with pay. The firm said it was evaluating the circumstances of each employee's access to the account to determine appropriate action, including disciplinary proceedings.</p>
<p>"We apologize to President-elect Obama and will work to keep the trust our customers place in us every day," chief executive Lowell McAdam said in a statement.</p>
<p>Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson declined to comment beyond the company's prepared statement and wouldn't specify how many employees saw the account or what kind of information was viewed.</p>
<p>The breech of personal data comes as some security experts question whether Obama, who used the Web as a central part of his campaign strategy, should for security purposes stop using devices to transfer e-mail and other data when he becomes president.</p>
<p>The account has been inactive for several months, Verizon said. Obama's phone was a flip-phone as opposed to a Blackberry or other smartphone device that is better suited for heavy e-mail and other data services, Verizon said.</p>
<p>While the company wouldn't elaborate on what kind of data was viewed on Obama's account, it could include calling and billing records.</p>
<p>Verizon will soon become the nation's largest wireless carrier after completing its merger with <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Alltel+Corporation?tid=informline" target="_blank">Alltel</a>.</p>
</div></div><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>