Slashdot Log In
Telecom Immunity Showdown in the Senate Today
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:20 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This discussion has been archived.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!
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: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!
Chris Dodd leads the way (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a good outline [dailykos.com] of what will be going down.
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: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
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
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
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
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: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: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: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