dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2009-06-04 08:57:20: Given Obama's support for telecom company immunity for handing over consumer data wholesale to the NSA without a warrant, it wasn't particularly surprising to see the administration perpetuate the Bush Administration's positions on domestic wiretappi.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


sirwoogie
Blah
Premium
join:2002-01-02
Carleton, MI

2 recommendations

Change

...we can believe in.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Good

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.

Has the EFF or anyone actually proved that our rights were abused or are they still just blowing smoke?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

1 edit
reply to sirwoogie

Re: Change

said by sirwoogie:

...we can believe in.
Oh, never seen that one before. You're clever!

While this pisses me off to no end, if you thought every single thing in Washington was going to change, you (not you specifically) are a fool. A lot has changed and a lot already is changing, but unfortunately this didn't and I hope the EFF is able to win this battle.

Psst, the judge who dismissed it was appointed by Bushie the 1st: »www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2483

expert007

join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY

1 recommendation

Yeah, I'm not happy about this one (understatement), but I'm looking at the bigger picture. Which is undoubtedly changing for the better. I haven't taken an in-depth look at these cases yet, but I really believe that this was just plain wrong.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 recommendations

reply to pnh102

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.

No harm was done to any US citizens. The EFF & ACLU are on a witch hunt and are just looking to punish monetarily AT&T & Verizon in order to earn fees for their organizations. Call it the "Full employment for class action lawyers" lawsuit.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

cafields

join:2003-12-17
Muncie, IN

1 edit
reply to pnh102

no ones, as you say, blowing smoke. I decided not to vote for obama, after hillary dropped out, then obama voted to give full immunity to the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, before that at two or more of his BS speeches, he said he would never give immunity to the telecoms for illegal wiretapping.


IanR

join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC

1 edit

Let me understand the legal ruling here.

Seemingly it's OK to break the law so long as it's in national security interest.
Surely that's an oxymoron?
So in this court's mind who has the authority to decide whether it's in the national security interests? Since this ruling has now allowed the bypassing of Federal Judges, who could/should have been asked for warrants. So that legal authority has now been assumed by some faceless entity?

What legal nonsense is this? A Judge has ruled that Federal Judges are an inappropriate authority to make quick rulings on warrants!!!!!



woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
reply to FFH

Re: Good

Name change, but still the same
--
BlooMe


mlundin

join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

No harm was done to any US citizens.
BULLSHIT. Harm is done to EVERY US citizen EVERY time a right is violated. How many rights are you willing to give away before you don't have any left? My answer is none, and so I have been harmed.


POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

1 recommendation

reply to IanR

Re: Let me understand the legal ruling here.

said by IanR:

Seemingly it's OK to break the law so long as it's in national security interest.

Let me break it down for you. Telecom immunity = Certain persons, including the non-carbon kind that are incorporated in the Caymans so they don't have to pay U.S. taxes - are above the law.
--
The Toll

Tracking Lord Stanley


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
reply to Matt3

Re: Change

said by Matt3:

A lot has changed and a lot already is changing
Other than even more government spending and waste, I haven't seen much change.

lordofwhee

join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
reply to IanR

Re: Let me understand the legal ruling here.

Remember, when the .gov does it, it's not illegal.

I guess we just elected Richard Nixon three times in a row...


MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA

Scared in Power

Face it, big-brother has been listening and recording everything for decades. Unfortunately, the agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA) have not shared info until post disaster. The inevitable 'next attack' no doubt influences recent decisions. Politicians fear the 'blame' game and thus, continue ignoring and bending the law. Our intelligence agencies depend on listening-in to all communications as assets on-the-ground have limited success with the bad-guy's organizations, and are expensive. Thus, the vacuum-cleaner approach. What's really bad is that this 'casualness' to following the law and constitution is becoming SOP.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to mlundin

Re: Good

said by mlundin:

Harm is done to EVERY US citizen EVERY time a right is violated.
How has harm been done to you personally?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

said by pnh102:

How has harm been done to you personally?
are you actually curious about how he was personally harmed, or do you just not care about the constitution?


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

1 recommendation

reply to jester121

Re: Change

said by jester121:

said by Matt3:

A lot has changed and a lot already is changing
Other than even more government spending and waste, I haven't seen much change.
You see what you want to see. If you don't want to see any, you won't. If you look at the educational, scientific, economic, and worldwide perception changes that have taken place already, you might have a different perspective.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

Has the EFF or anyone actually proved that our rights were abused or are they still just blowing smoke?
Congress voted for telecom immunity BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. There would be no need for telecom immunity if EFF just made it up.

EFF is 100% right here. The US Gov't exceeded its rights under the Constitution, infringing on the rights of the people guaranteed in the Constitution. To provide immunity, the government can't simply make unconstitutional law and call it "good," it has to change the constitution itself.

Was I harmed individually? No, but since when is that a criteria? We The People were harmed, collectively, by a government which exceeded its bounds.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL

lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

1 recommendation

reply to mlundin

Would that apply to the rights of 401k holders whose 401k's included bonds with GM & Chrysler? Savings and investment plans further decimated by Obama contrary to standing US law, essentially denying due process and equal protection to the evil investors in order to payback the UAW.

Clearly a violation of their due process and equal protection rights.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

1 recommendation

reply to expert007

Re: Change

said by expert007:

Yeah, I'm not happy about this one (understatement), but I'm looking at the bigger picture.
Translated:I'm not going to make the same stink over it that I would if it were Bush we're talking about.
The severity of the crime depends on who's committing it, after all.

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 recommendation

reply to Matt3

Things have changed.. some for the better, some for the worse.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to nasadude

Re: Good

said by nasadude:

are you actually curious about how he was personally harmed, or do you just not care about the constitution?
Yes. That is why I asked the question.

You can't credibly claim your rights were violated without them actually being violated.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to funchords

said by funchords:

EFF is 100% right here. The US Gov't exceeded its rights under the Constitution, infringing on the rights of the people guaranteed in the Constitution. To provide immunity, the government can't simply make unconstitutional law and call it "good," it has to change the constitution itself.
That's all fine and dandy, but again, can you provide any evidence that the US government broadly and systematically violated the rights of the American people with regard to telephone call log monitoring?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
reply to FFH

"No harm was done to any US citizens."

Who knows. After all, who watches the watchers? ...Or have you never considered that

I was not the least bit surprised when Obama "flip flopped" on this issue. When he first said he was against it, he was either completely ignorant of what was really going on, or didn't care and just made an empty promise anyway.

As far as those organizations being on a "witch hunt" - that's a nice way to prop up your obvious dislike for them, which should not be the issue here. Regardless of your opinion of these organizations, there is a very valid point being made. If you disagree, then let's hear some debate of substance instead of conceited opinion.


lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

1 edit
reply to POB

Re: Let me understand the legal ruling here.

Okay, break it down for us, specifically, which telecom corporations are you talking about? I would like to know so that I can avoid business dealings with them.



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to en102

Re: Change

said by en102:

Things have changed.. some for the better, some for the worse.
I think that is a very fair and open-minded assessment of the situation.


badtrip
I heart the East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
reply to pnh102

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

That's all fine and dandy, but again, can you provide any evidence that the US government broadly and systematically violated the rights of the American people with regard to telephone call log monitoring?
I believe that's exactly what these court cases are all about. Remember that courts not only decide punishment for individuals who commit crimes, they also decide whether a crime was committed in the first place.

The Bush/Obama administrations are trying to subvert the second of the two court functions I mentioned above.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.

....
they already have cover from lawsuits - it's called "following the law". Qwest declined to illegally wiretap their customers at the request of the government and they aren't being sued. They followed the law.

My understanding is that some amount of surveillance could have been done within the law, but the administration at the time didn't want to be bothered with those pesky laws (and that rag, the constitution). They were found out and the companies that didn't follow the law are being sued.

the only reason the lawsuits were thrown out is because congress retroactively changed the law to make the previous unlawful behaviour lawful.

Isn't it great when private industries own congress?


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

said by nasadude:

are you actually curious about how he was personally harmed, or do you just not care about the constitution?
Yes. That is why I asked the question.

You can't credibly claim your rights were violated without them actually being violated.
It's a baited question, any answer would be related to telecommunications or internet or similar. Those things are all priviledges...

Nice try at the set and spike by you two.
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to amungus

said by amungus:

"No harm was done to any US citizens."

Who knows. After all, who watches the watchers? ...Or have you never considered that
Those that are in support of these claims and lawsuits being dismissed will fall back on legal answers that essentially make any national spying method or program not exist. You're suppose to be a good sheep and pretend you don't know that there are pieces of hardware that exist that make this claimed activity pretty simple.

Then when the argument changes direction it will be pointed out only criminals and terrorists have anything to hide so get over yourself.

What you probably won't see them pointing out right now is the fact that these things are being dismissed because there is a law on the books that negates their case. It's easier to wave their hatred soaked political flag that points out they know more than you do. The perpetual troll that sees too much as being real but likes new names.
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.
So it's lawsuits and money and not the rule of law that will make them cooperate. They'll willingly break the law and not help the government?

If the government is following the law when wanting information from a business they are not asking for this info, they are telling them what they are going to have handed over to them.

So shall we go back to the spring and early summer of the year 2001 and reveal what was going on or has that time in history been given magical immunity? You're arguing against something as if it didn't exist because you're holding it in your hands behind your back where nobody can see it...
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~