What I do not permit, is any legal action taken on my behalf by lawyers who have not contacted me and asked for my permission or my opinion. Where can i sue these charlatans?

Wonder who the anonymous sources were. (He says with surprise in his voice.)

That is EXACTLY backwards. A lawyer should be lgally barred from representing me without my permission, unless I am in some way incapable of giving permission (and then, there should be someon who the designated guardian).

“Second, it takes two to tango. If the feds showed up at my door demanding that I give them copies of all my customer records, I would politely tell them to bug off, and to come back when they had a warrant, or at least a subpoena.”

Except that this has ben settled law AND CASE LAW for literally DECADES. No warrant has been required, and that has been settled and court-approved for many, many years.

“”Any other advanced country” might not be run by such a lawless bunch of characters.”

Except that, as I said, this has been the established law of THIS country for a long time.

Quite clearly erroneous in this instance. If the list of those with legal claims heavily overlaps with the entire universe of phone subscribers, as the $5 billion figure implies, it should not be hard to line up enough opt-in claimants for a monetary demand to mount into the many millions.

Excessive damages specified by statute — or, as the case may be, individual statutory damages that emerge as excessive when aggregated via an opt-out class action format — are a perfectly logical part of this site’s beat, since they help explain why lawyers are so active in areas like this. Please don’t feign surprise that it is not otherwise.

“many of whom do not feel aggrieved”–any class member who does not feel aggrieved is more than free to opt out of any suit or settlement.

“damages provisions wholly unhinged from any actual measure of injury”–your beef here is with Congress, not with the lawyers. Also, how would you measure damages for this kind of invasion of privacy? The point is not that any individual customer was damaged–it’s the collective harm to our privacy that’s at issue. The only way to deter this kind of conduct is to enforce some measure of damages which must be (albeit arbitrarily) set in law. Better to have Congress making that decision through statutory damages than to have some unelected judge or easily-swayed jury deciding, no? It’s hard to feel that the communications industry, with its massive lobbying funds (they bought the ’96 Communications Act, don’t forget) is being oppressed by an overreaching Congress.

“suits aimed at deep-pocketed fall guys when the scheme’s actual instigator shields itself with sovereign immunity”–first, it’s not clear that sovereign immunity would apply–I can see a 1983 action being brought for violations of the Fourth Amendment. Second, it takes two to tango. If the feds showed up at my door demanding that I give them copies of all my customer records, I would politely tell them to bug off, and to come back when they had a warrant, or at least a subpoena. The government’s “instigation” is neither here nor there–the phone companies could have said “no,” and some of them did.

“Any other advanced country” might not be run by such a lawless bunch of characters. “Any other advanced country” might require a warrant or subpoena before the government could so invade its citizens’ privacy.

Then what you’ve read is completely and utterly wrong, to the point of being in diametric opposition to what is right.

Unless I am missing something here, the data being given (which number called, which number received, possibly length of call?) is specifically allowed both in legislation and in case law (there’s a Somebody V Somebody that established this definitively – don’t remembr name at the moment).

In short, th company that COMPLIED with THE LAW is the one getting sued… FOR COMPLYING WITH THE LAW. I see that as HIGHLY problematic. Shouldn’t everyone?!?