prosecutor
Do Your Duty--Be A Juror
Premium
join:2002-11-15
Plano, TX
| reply to GPorter
Re: How does SBC stand RE: recent RIAA activity?
Time limits are a legitimate consideration. Overbreadth might be another.
Under no circumstances, however, can SBC (or any other internet provider) try to contract around its legal obligations to the court system. In other words, the contract does not, and cannot, matter. Your logic, taken to its extreme, might allow an ISP to contract with persons that it will notify them of the existence of a subpoena. This in turn would allow a pedophile or mafiosi to up and move prior to a legitimate law enforcement action.
Fact is, a number of major market ISP's are starting to limit the length of time they keep data in order to limit their subpoena exposure. This also means, however, that they may be (are) destroying evidence of the worst sort of criminal offenses imaginable.
Fact also is that SBC does require subpoenas for its records in every single case. The record center is here in Dallas. The system is cumbersome and slow, but it works in most cases. The hardest part is finding a real live human being to take responsibility for compliance. | |
GPorter
It Always Works Better When It's On
join:2001-03-21
San Antonio, TX
| said by prosecutor  :
Time limits are a legitimate consideration. Overbreadth might be another.
Under no circumstances, however, can SBC (or any other internet provider) try to contract around its legal obligations to the court system. In other words, the contract does not, and cannot, matter. Your logic, taken to its extreme, might allow an ISP to contract with persons that it will notify them of the existence of a subpoena. This in turn would allow a pedophile or mafiosi to up and move prior to a legitimate law enforcement action.
I wouldn't want them to notify the subject of a subpoena. But I would expect them to-as you state elsewhere-require a subpoena before divulging information they have contracted to retain in confidence.
said by prosecutor :
Fact is, a number of major market ISP's are starting to limit the length of time they keep data in order to limit their subpoena exposure. This also means, however, that they may be (are) destroying evidence of the worst sort of criminal offenses imaginable.
From what I've read of these sorts of offenses, the only thing that is lost is the potential for information detailing the length of time the offender has been committing said offenses. On the other hand, maintaining a shorter archive of customer records reduces the number of personnel and amount of storage space needed. I call that a business compromise, not aiding and abetting.
said by prosecutor :
Fact also is that SBC does require subpoenas for its records in every single case. The record center is here in Dallas. The system is cumbersome and slow, but it works in most cases. The hardest part is finding a real live human being to take responsibility for compliance.
Bureaucracies of all sorts have a certain amount of inertia. Obtaining a subpoena is not exactly a speedy process, is it? On the other hand, having access to the actual keeper of records has the effect of deterring the casual (excuse the expression) hack lawyer attempting to intimidate a firm into releasing something that said hack lawyer has no legal right to.
--
Glenn-Remembering 9-11-01 "Let's Roll!" | |
|
