Slashdot Log In
Telecom Immunity Showdown in the Senate Today
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Dec 17, 2007 09:20 AM
from the come-and-see-the-hypocricy-in-the-system dept.
from the come-and-see-the-hypocricy-in-the-system dept.
CPeanutG writes "A make-or-break moment for telecom immunity has arrived — after months of back-room committee-meetings, the FISA bill will finally reach the Senate floor on Monday! Unfortunately, a previously-reported version of the bill that grants telecom immunity will be presented to the Senate on Monday morning. The clock is ticking. Write your Senators now."
Related Stories
[+]
Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill 483 comments
otakuj462 sends in an important followup to this morning's story on telecom immunity legislation. "Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance... [T]he threat of Dodd's filibuster... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I did, but it won't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Phaf!
Re:We never took responsibility before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, I don't know that the solution is. I don't see how a Palestinian state can survive without free access between the West Bank and Gaza. And I don't see how you can have free access between Gaza and the West Bank without also having free access to Israel. I don't see Israel granting free access until the terror threat is reduced. I don't see the terror threat reduced until independence. No wonder the British hucked it over the fence to the UN!
If I were emperor, I'd probably make Palestine a country, build a highway between the West Bank and Gaza, put up a 30-mile fence, make Jerusalem a UN-administered city (the whole thing), and tell Israel to get over it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wasn't arguing that he didn't win the election (although "overwhelmingly embraces" is overstating his case just a bit). I was simply agreeing with OP that he was only pretending to be a Democrat, as evidenced by who ultimately supported him. The Republicans liked
Nice exclamation point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
Fourth Amendment:
While the executive branch is more at fault for strong arming the telecos I don't think the public is well served by granting amnesty for ignoring the law.
Parent
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
Also telling people "if we ask you to do something illegal that doesn't mean we won't punish you later" is a good way to make it harder for govt branches to get illegal help from private entities.
Parent
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is really what these bills are about: It is not giving teleco's amnesty so much as giving the executive branch amnesty for asking someone else to do an illegal thing on their behalf.
Parent
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
There must be some industry protections (Score:4, Informative)
OK. Let's do some math here. It was the goal of the NSA to make records of every phone call made within the US and who it was to and from. Let's be conservative and say they only succeeded in recording the phone logs of 10% of the population and were in violation for 4 years.
(300000000/10)((4)365)(100) = $4,380,000,000,000.
Over four trillion dollars in civil liability, and that's being conservative. Even AT&T can't absorb that much. Think about what would happen if AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell all went bankrupt at once. Think about the stock market. Think about the mutual funds which presently hold telecom stock and all the pension funds and non-profit endowments that are currently invested in them. Think about trying to get a job in the tech sector when you're competing with all the unemployed telecom workers. Think about broadband deployment in unserved areas for sure.
Knocking out communications infrastructure is something invading forces do. It's not something that governments are supposed to let happen.
There are some executives who need to have their heads on pikes, but the industry itself needs protection.
Parent
Re:There must be some industry protections (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, making these bastards answer for their crimes won't knock out the communications infrastructure. It will still be there, but AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell will have to sell theirs for pennies on the dollar to telcos that didn't violate the law. And, if there is some disruption in communications, maybe people will for once stop watching staring at the tv all the time and actually pay attention to who is running things. It's a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned.
Parent
Re:There must be some industry protections (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
oh okay. They didn't do anything illegal, we can drop the amnesty provisions, they don't need them. Right?
Parent
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, if the gov't asks them to eavesdrop on a citizen, they become an agent of the state, and as such cannot legally abridge 4th amendment protections. The Government cannot end-run the protections by asking someone else to do it for them. If they could, the Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper its printed upon.
If on the other hand, the telco volunteered without prompting such information, then yes, there would be no violation. That is soooooooo not the case here.
Parent
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
And why are the neocons, the administration and some cowardly Democrats (Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller, specifically) fighting like their lives depended on it to make sure that language granting blanket retroactive amnesty (aka "ex post facto") gets included in this execrable "FISA" law?
Up until today, telecommunications companies would at least think twice before turning over phone records and allowing wide-ranging and unspecific wiretaps without warrants. After today, unless the very brave Senator Dodd from Connecticut is successful, any two-bit shitheel political operative will be able to get the private phone records of any American citizen without even asking a judge "mother may I".
It's really very simple. Our Constitution says that before the government (or an agency thereof, or some "contractor") can search your home, person, or effects, it has to convince a judge that there is a compelling legal reason to do so. It doesn't get much more reasonable (or simple) than that. There has long been a give-and-take between the government and the courts over this basic Constitutional requirement, where the government (Nixon) would go too far, then the Courts and the Congress would reel him in. The ultimate effect was a fairly robust protection of our rights. But in the last 7 years, there has been an effort to effect a permanent shredding of all limitations to what the government, particularly the executive branch (which means law enforcement, by the way), can do. The lasting effect of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of the rights of citizens.
Say, ArcherB, would you mind very much if someone who dislikes you were able to get recordings of every private phone call you've ever made?
If there's any group of people who understand this danger, it should be the readers of Slashdot. We also happen to be one of the groups that is best capable of putting up a fight to protect the Constitution.
Maybe if we put it this way: "The Bush Administration is trying to put a permanent root-kit on your system, and they will soon have superuser access." some of you might show a pulse on this issue. Or maybe: "The Bush Administration is running a cheat on the MMORPG that is your life. And it's a cheat that you will never be able to use." Now, does that spoil your fun, bubbie?
Parent
See Section 222 of the Communications Act (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. They might not be bound by the Bill of Rights, but there are other (federal!) laws that apply. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html [cornell.edu]
Here, allow me to quote it for you.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you're right that the Fourth Amendment doesn't directly apply to private parties. But I think it operates to constrain them indirectly.
When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no common law right of privacy. That didn't come until Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote "The Right to Privacy", often called the most important law review article o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:5, Insightful)
If theses companies and their employees did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide . . . right? Why should the government pass a law granting them amnesty?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Various eavesdropping laws and wiretap laws?
I don't see what the cost is.
Abuse of the power [guardian.co.uk]. Loss of trust in the government.
Re:Nice exclamation point (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, either you really don't know much about the law, or you are trolling. But in case it is just ignorance of the law, the answer is YES.
Federal law enforcement officials may tap telephone lines only after showing "probable cause" of unlawful activity and obtaining a court order. This unlawful activity must involve certain specified felony violations. The court order must limit the surveillance to communications related to the unlawful activity and to a specific period of time, usually 30 days. (Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2516)
"I don't see what the cost is."
And the administration thanks you for it. Have you been paying attention to the news? While the law is stated as above, the current administration is claiming they are above the law and don't need to follow it. Hence the whole controversy about illegal phone tapping...
Parent
Misread title (Score:3, Funny)
Well, let's see (Score:3, Insightful)
Klobuchar? Voted for FISA last summer. Blue dog Dem who votes against the constitution more often than not.
Democracy, 21st century style, in action.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe, but I have helped to change a few people's votes here. The best thing to do is get enough people to call in to let them know this is a decision that would force many people to consider them unelectable. In other words, they go into the anyone but them box. I am not saying it is easy, but is can be done.
Businesses may have the dollars, but the people have the votes, and grass roots can work - albeit with time.
InnerWeb
Senate contact info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Senate contact info (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to scare anyone, just thinking... This is one time where pen and paper would have been the only way to go.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Life is not a conspiracy movie.
It works differently when there are no writers trying to make everything interesting for an audience. It's a lot more real, with people going to work and doing normal things rather than everyone either trying to take over the world or stop you from taking over the world.
You should consider joining us here in reality sometime. It's less interesting, but you get
Anthrax (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Senate contact info (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Without cash good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
The telecom industry pays well for the politicians that they hire. No amount of complaining by us or anyone else like us will modify the votes of those politicians. Unless you can provide more money than the telecom industry there is little chance of influencing this bill and getting it changed.
Writing won't work... Try this (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what you you:
1. Hand write the letter of your dreams and include these aspects:
a. Make sure it's not overly emotional
b. Mention how you will be "posting the response in our place of business" near the end
c. Mention how many voters currently work in your office and that you are all anxiously awaiting the response
d. Include a response fax number, email, and more
2. Fax the letter to the congressman's office (you can usually find their number online)
3. Watch for your reply!
Apparently this method will get your letter to the top of the pile since it's personalized, instantly delivered via an underutilized technology, and it mentions votes.
Enjoy!
You forgot 1e (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a shear numbers game. Most aren't even from people in their district. Whenever a hot button topic is up for a vote, the interested parties will rally their faithful and bombard them with form letter emails or calls
Chris Dodd leads the way (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a good outline [dailykos.com] of what will be going down.
Some of the supporters... (Score:3, Informative)
Why are we concerned over the telecoms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I could care less about the telecoms. That's not my worry. When government tells you to jump, you jump. Gitmo is an ugly hotel for those who refuse. If the State forced me to release my logs, what can I do to fight it? Call the EFF or the IJ [ij.org]? That'll help, maybe 3 years down the road.
No, the real issue is the one most geeks and freedom-lovers ignore: that our elected candidates continue to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The President, the Senators, and almost all of the Congressional Representatives save 2 have violated this oath. The penalty should be the equivalent to the most extreme penalty available for the greatest crime that specific level of government can enforce.
Stop turning the issue to the telecoms, who are merely shills for the State. The true crime has been committed by every branch of government, and it is a crime that must be investigated. Unfortunately, the investigators are themselves, so the crime will be ignored, with the anger pointed at businesses who will likely get what they deserve.
Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms? (Score:4, Insightful)
Forced compliance which the Telcos are anxious to productize? And why didn't Qwest wind up in Gitmo when they said "no"?
No, these are sleazy companies who deserve everything we throw at them. Further, the President won't release info on what he did, but we can pull it out of the telecoms. We can then impeach him based on that info. And ultimately, telling companies that they're above the law means that we only get more AT&Ts and fewer Qwests. We need to reward Qwest's behavior, so that we see corporations say "no" more often.
Hey, let's give Qwest Michigan! Merry Christmas, Qwest! You were a good little boy, so you get a present. AT&T, you get a lump of coal.
Parent
Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms? (Score:4, Insightful)
GP poster meant Ron Paul. You haven't been reading social networking news recently, have you?
Parent
Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even understand how people can, with a straight face, offer up the excuse that you just did. It makes no sense.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, present us with a scenario where
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, no and when exactly did we leave? I must have missed that news flash about the US leaving Afghanistan.
"Please, present us with a scenario where we would need our military."
You should study what led up to WWI. You'll be fascinated, because even today people argue over the cause. Today, there are lots of flashpoints around the globe that could lead to war on a world scale. Thes
Crooks and Liars (Score:4, Informative)
too late (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to say it isn't worth trying, but don't get your hopes up
Letters to your Senator (Score:3, Informative)
Having worked as an intern on the hill (the ones who actually sort all of your letters, and faxes), I can tell you that unless you personally know someone up there your letter (by itself) means little, no matter how it is sent, most likely it will be logged into a database program and assigned a basic form letter reply.
A letter writing campaign may change a Congressman's mind if he gets enough correspondence from registered voters in his district, but a Senator isnt going to change his mind on a major issue like this due to correspondence from voters. Still though its good to voice your opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All we are is farts in the wind
Re:the only common sense reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Qwest refused. Supposedly they were subsequently punished for it. Whether they were or not is the subject of a court case. However:
If they were punished, not punishing the complaint telcos for doing whatever the government says sends a message to the compliant telcos that subservience and submission to illegal government orders is in their best interests.
If they weren't punished, supposedly there is no reason why the compliant telcos should have obeyed the illegal government orders. In which case, where is the moral argument for not punishing a group of corporations who illegally helped the government subvert the constitution of the United States?
Parent
Re:the only common sense reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no immunity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Only by these individuals being held accountable in some way, will it send a message to business that individuals acting on behalf of the organization have to act within the law. If they were 'coerced' using illegal threats, then the individuals within the Govt agency responsible should ALSO be held accountable. And this may weigh into the severity of the punishment the company reps receive.
Until INDIVIDUALS are held accountable, then Companies and large corporations will continue to break the law, presumably hoping the fine isn't too severe when/if they eventually get caught.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)