639594
story
Comments: 123 +- Politics: House Republicans Renew Push for Telecom Immunity on Thursday April 24 2008, @02:45AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicus.gif); width:80px; height:61px;
usa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
CNet is running an update to the controversy over giving telecommunications giants such as AT&T immunity from lawsuits involving the assistance they gave the NSA for illegal wiretaps. Republican leaders are circulating a petition which would force a vote on the bill passed by the Senate but not by the House. Democrats are holding out for a version of the FISA bill which opens the telecoms to prosecution. President Bush still intends to veto any such document.
"At a wide-ranging House hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller again urged passage of a bill that includes immunity for phone companies, arguing that 'uncertainty' among the carriers 'affects our ability to get info as fast and as quickly as we would want.' He admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction."
Related Stories
Your Rights Online: US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms 623 comments
Your Rights Online: House Declines To Vote On Telecom Immunity 341 comments
Things are more like they used to be than they are now.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Sure they can have immunity... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know what sickens me more, the extent to which Bushco has defiled the rule of law in this country or that they'll most likely succeed in avoiding prosecution by running out the clock.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, just venting a bit now and again on forums or to friends or co-workers; is just as bad as ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exists. As long as people continue to stick their head
Re:Not until they cut us our $150,000.00 checks.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Take ALL their assets. Bankrupt them, distribute the proceeds, THEN jail the sonzabitches.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.
The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?
In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.
The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.
You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded. That's why companies incorporate. You have to sue the company itself as it is its own entity.
Now, if you can find a telco that allowed wire taps and is a sole proprietorship, then have at it! Good luck in finding one of those.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded.
Yes, I know that. I'm a few steps ahead of you. You sue the corporation; the settlement (and it always settles) comes out of the corporation's treasury, which means the corporation owns fewer assets, which means the stock is less valuable, which means the share price drops, which means people who own the shares just cumulatively lost an amount of money exactly equal to the price of the settlement. In other words, as I said, the shareholders bear the loss.
The only time shareholders' limited liability mak
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowadays, I agree with them that he is a criminal, that his behavior is unethical, that he is running the country into the ground and that his war is being waged on behalf of corporate interests. But I try not to badmouth and insult him, because I don't think it's right. And I don't want to turn anyone else away.
It's hard enough getting people to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's an unethical criminal who is destroying our country on the behalf of corporate interests... but it's not okay to badmouth him? What kind of twisted world do you live in? If you don't "badmo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for an absolutely classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Clearly there is something wrong with you, therefore there must be something wrong with your argument. Please, attach the argument or position, or remain quiet--attacking the person accomplishes nothing.
That said, Bush has done much to deserve the vitriol that is so squarely aimed at him, at least in the eyes of many, and on top of that I think you own prejudices have caused you to apparently read WAY too much into something as simpl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are absolutely incorrect. This is almost a textbook example of an ad hominem argument. The claim of the argument is that, because the proponent of a position is supposedly a "hate filled bigot," the position is therefore invalid.
To use Wikipedia's example:
This is precisely the content of the argument I was responding to. Please, if you are going to attempt to correct somebody on a point like this, in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prejudice is the mother of all traps, sure. Here's the one I fell into:
In an essay by Ron Suskind [nytimes.com], one of the President's advisors is quoted referring to
as a political advantage for the President.
I know I'm not alone: when I saw the way he walks and the way he points, every poser alarm in my system started screaming bloody fool.
As you say, right or wrong, snap judgments convinc
National Security or Political Security? (Score:5, Informative)
Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]
"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.
Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course if you want to throw out Hoekstra youre going to have to do what he did to get elected: win the primary, which is where most money is spent in MI2.
Michigan's 2nd Congressional District includes a large amount of Conservative Christians (Calvinists), and Hoekstra's conservative base in Ottawa county is quite safe for him. It is the reddest county in the nation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Little more than a stunt, really (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is what scares the Bush administration most: transparency. They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I forget who made that quote, but it's still valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He also wrote "The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered, they lack many of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics...
No, they're not. The Democratic Party has gone out of their way to self-destruct - again - and is incapable of putting up a unified front. The continued primary season guarantees that we'll be seeing McCain in office next year, since the Democrats have managed to completely split the party into people who'll vote for Obama but not Clinton and Clinton but not Obama. So whoever ultimately wins, the Democrats lose.
To rework a phrase someone has already said, never underestimate the ability of the Democratic P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket should motivate the Democratic voters for both front runners. Additionally, as long as the coverage focuses on the race between Clinton and Obama, the less it's focusing on that other guy who happens to be running for President and that's not good for him with undecided voters.
Re:Little more than a stunt, really (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But a funny thing happened: since they started standing tough on the PAA bill, they've seen their polls actually improve, and all of a sudden "safe"
Someone tell me something: (Score:2)
OK, FISA rules state that the government can tap a phone line and get a warrant later. In other words, they DO NOT need a warrant at the time of the tapping.
So, if the telco's should allow the government to tap a line without a warrant according to FISA rules, then what did they do wrong? It appears to me that they followed the law, specifically FISA to the letter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush couldn't even be bothered to do that much though. So that's why we are where we are.
Re:Someone tell me something: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious the Republicans think that they and the telecommunications companies did break the law, and in such a serious way that they are desperately fearful of the aftermath of their actions.
Parent
Link (Score:5, Informative)
This is the relevant passage:
...FBI Director Robert Mueller continued that push on Wednesday, but he wouldn't go so far as to say those "private partners" would stop installing requested wiretaps unless certain legal protection is granted.
To some extent, Mueller is stating the obvious: Federal law requires telephone and Internet companies to comply with lawful wiretap court orders or lawful certifications from the attorney general, with stiff penalties for noncompliance. But Mueller said in various ways that he was concerned that lack of retroactive liability protection would harm the government's "relationships" with telephone companies -- which seems to leave in doubt whether all of the administration's requests were legal.
The seemingly reluctant admission came during pointed questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Specter, the committee's ranking member, has proposed an amendment--which has so far been unsuccessful--to a controversial spy law update that would allow lawsuits alleging illegal spying by telephone companies to continue, except with government lawyers substituted in the companies' place.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said he disagreed with that approach, arguing it would provide a "disincentive" for communications companies to team up with federal terrorism investigations.
Then the following exchange ensued:
Specter: A disincentive, OK, but do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it is a disincentive...
Specter: But do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it would hamper our relationships, yes.... I do think it would hinder our relationships.
Specter: Disincentive, hamper, hinder, but I don't hear you say it would stop....
Mueller: I'm not going to say it's going to stop, but I do believe delay is detrimental to the safety of the country. Delay and lack of clarity, lack of simplicity guiding our relationships inhibits our ability to get the information we need on a daily basis.
...
The Telcos are really caught in the middle... (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, NOT granting them immunity is the only way we are ever going to get to the bottom of the wiretapping scandal, since suits against the govt. have been dismissed for lack of standing. (Lack of standing has been ruled, because the plaintiff's have not been allowed to collect or present evidence that the wiretapping took place at all. A stupid Catch-22.)
SirWired
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not the telco's job to evaluate the constitutionality of requests from a government agency.
What?
A. We're talking basic legality, not Constitutionality
B. Anyone receiving a "request" has the obligation to say no if it conflicts with existing laws or other obligations.
Remember when Google fought off that subpoena by the Justice Dept because the Feds wanted to get their hands on search results to bolster some child protection law? Google evaluated the legality of that "request" from the government, told them to take a flying leap, and was backed up by a Judge.
There are so many other counter-example
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty easy, really: "do you have a warrant?"
Plus, it *is* the telco companies' job to not do illegal things, just like it is any individual's job to not do illegal things -- if you do, you get in trouble for it. That's your incentive to figure out whether something is legal or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't cost extra money; they've got a budget for lawyers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or more likely, the money. AT&T found its principles rather quickly, once Uncle Sam's check bounced. This is the sort of thing that could come out in discovery, and this is what the telcos want immunity from.
Where's the risk for the telcos? (Score:2)
Worst case for the telcos, they have to refund some amount to each customer. Maybe rebate the "CALEA fee" for a year or two, plus pay the EFF's legal bills. It's not going to be a big dollar cost.
No, it's embarrassment to the Bush Administration that the Bush Administration is worried about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention that Jesus himself supposedly said that you can only serve one lord - money, or God. But then again, they probably read the Bible like they read a novel - read the first couple
of chapters with great interest, and then skip to the last to see how the story ends.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The bible is a terrible source of morals/ethics. It's misogynist, spiteful and in some places just plain *weird*.
OTOH, you're right, it's pretty clear on the money issue.
But my first point there was really to illustrate that no sane individual derives morals from the bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, what a twist!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most claim to be highly religious, yet they take these actions which seem to be purely unethically motivated. I often wonder how they imagine themselves squaring accepting money from lobbyists, etc with God. "it was a lot of money" seems like a terrible excuse.
So... maybe it's that they realize the truth: there is no spoo.. er god. All we have is who we are now, not some threat of retribution or vague reward later. Otherwise, why would they do things that they know "god will see"?
One person hearing a voice in his head is crazy.
One million people hearing voices in their head is a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue here is no oversight, no idea who's being tapped and a bunch of telcos that were raking in the cash for illegal favors trying to avoid being held accountable by the people. Basically as it stands now it is almost completely unknown as to who was being tapped, for what reasons and why. The fact that they weren't even bothering to use FISA which is set up with notoriously lax standar
Re:Hard to Say "No." (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, companies need to be held accountable for their actions- period.
It's not "okay" because the President asked them pretty please and gave 'em an offer they couldn't refuse. If a mobster did the same thing and you robbed a bank, stole a car, or killed someone- you'd do the time all the same or some lessened sentence and you'd be found guilty of the crime.
No immunity. Present your evidence- roll the dice and see what comes of it.
Parent
Re:Hard to Say "No." (Score:5, Insightful)
And more: the mobster would do time as well. So, why isn't the president?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hard to Say "No." (Score:5, Insightful)
Immunity just allows the White House to hide the evidence of what they were doing when they knowingly broke the law by asking for information they could not legally ask for.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)