Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
|  ????
I am not sure how this will help. With the Bells Heavily lobbing and in control.
And Bush said he will veto any bill that will hold Bells accountable.
Should the government be held accountable if the Bells are not for breaking there own laws?
Either way I see this as pointless the Government already made up there mind.
 |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | pfftt....
the senate is a bunch of wusses, plain and simple. I for the life of me can't understand how giving the "telecoms" immunity from lawsuits is caving in on the terrorist/terrorism.
--
BlooMe
Edit to add "Fu@k Bush" and the rest of his chicken hawks! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
... you can get the info here:
»www.visi.com/juan/congress/
and then you don't have to use the pre-written EFF form opposed to immunity.
I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity.
P.S. The House leadership decides on who gets to be the House members of the conference committee. So, depending on their views on immunity, they can put House members on the committee that support or don't support immunity.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| said by TKJunkMail  :... you can get the info here: » www.visi.com/juan/congress/and then you don't have to use the pre-written EFF form opposed to immunity. I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity. That's all and well.
But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience.
It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends.
Were is the privacy and when and were do you draw the lines.
The only way to have privacy seems to be to talk in your own house or in person.
I really have nothing to hide but feels weird people listing in on you or just the idea of it even if they don't pick me to watch.
I do understand the terrorist issue though and I agree that just like you would want protection from a burglar from the police I would want to be protected from Terrorists. Thank you.
It is a give and take as long as line are drawn and I am not being just peeped on for no reason just to invade my privacy.
I do understand the concerns on both sides.  |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | reply to TKJunkMail
What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :That's all and well. But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience. It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The immunity provision has NOTHING to do with the parts of the Bill that affect spying going forward. Your concerns about spying were addressed in the FISA bill. There will be oversight.
The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TK Junk Mail
"I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. I don't want to hear it will cost us money in the end, because how can you attach a cost protecting our right$ I Bushes rhetoric seems to suggest that the only way he can protect us is by violating our rights and then giving immunity to those that did. So if he vetoes the bill isn't he dooming us to the terrorist? 
--
BlooMe |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to Surfinusa
Re: ????
said by Surfinusa :Should the government be held accountable if the Bells are not for breaking there own laws? Absolutely. Will they? Never. The police have the blue wall, the federal government has a black wall. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
said by TKJunkMail :said by Surfinusa :That's all and well. But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience. It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The immunity provision has NOTHING to do with the parts of the Bill that affect spying going forward. Your concerns about spying were addressed in the FISA bill. There will be oversight. The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. As long as there is proper over site I am not really concerned. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
1 edit | reply to woody7
Re: pfftt....
Edit: Well that didn't come out right. Back to /dev/null for me. |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to Surfinusa
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
I agree, this is ridiculous. The government can have all the terrorist fighting power they need with warrants. Meaning when they find something odd, they get a warrant so that only information on Joe Smo (and any contacts) is collected. This free-for-all, let the government get information on anyone without warrant or cause is a violation of privacy. I have already wrote my congressman and hope a stop is put on this. I say let Bush veto all the bills he wants. If he keeps vetoing all this bills it will look as though he is not willing to compromise (he isn't, never has), and will keep lowering his approval. This is why congresses ratings are so low, they keep giving in to a non-compromising president just to make it look as though they got something done. This needs to stop, they need to stand up to the poor policies of this president.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Benny said it all
Benjamin Franklin once observed:
"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That says it all, folks. |
|
laserjobs
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Las Vegas, NV
·Cox HSI
| Ways to keep your privacy
Use products like Zfone that are uncrackable to make calls
»zfoneproject.com/prod_zfone.html
--
Vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
said by TKJunkMail :... The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. no, the immunity part is the Bush administration trying to prevent any accountability for illegally spying on U.S. citizens.
Since the 70s we have had a law called FISA that is quite clear about when the telcos can provide information to the government - when the government presents a valid court order or certification that the request to turn over information is legal. Nearly every legal expert that has voiced an opinion agrees with this.
If the govt complied with FISA and provided the proper authorization to the telcos, the telcos have nothing to worry about, they will win their legal cases.
If the govt did not comply with FISA and just asked the companies to cooperate "because George or Dick sez so", then the telcos clearly violated the law that was in effect at the time.
The fact that both Bush and the telcos are pushing so hard for immunity seems to pretty strongly imply they both broke the law and they both know it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :... you can get the info here: » www.visi.com/juan/congress/and then you don't have to use the pre-written EFF form opposed to immunity. Thanks for posting that. It's nice to see some *balance* on DSL Reports.
Mark |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely* followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. *merely = knowingly and willingly; complicit in breaking the law and deciding to follow the illegal request by the government
therefore, they should be held accountable. |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | reply to nasadude
Don't forget they have up to 72 hours AFTER they start a wiretap to get a warrant |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
| Do you support immunity for telcos |
|---|
| | | NO |  68 (82.9%) | | YES | 11 (13.4%) | | Maybe | 3 (3.6%) | | I do not care | 0 (0%) | 82 participants.
results as pie chart in flash |
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
said by woody7 :why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. Civil court isn't where you prosecute broken laws and criminal behavior. It's where groups with political agendas bleed someone dry with class action lawsuits just because they can't accomplish their goal through criminal and impeachment courts.
Don't you find it odd that DSL Reports couches its article as "if you support things like due process..." when a rational person would say that using civil court to accomplish what can't be accomplished through criminal/impeachment court is essentially circumventing due process?
That's the problem I have with all this. I'd be perfectly happy if telco customers and investors (with a contractual relationship) sued telcos if they could prove damages. But, this is just a bunch of unrelated parties (with an agenda) using customers and investors to pursue "broken laws" instead of actual damages. To me, that's as much of an abuse of the system as the President and telcos are accused of.
Mark |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to PolarBear
Re: Benny said it all
said by PolarBear :Benjamin Franklin once observed: "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That says it all, folks. No it doesn't. It said it 230 years ago. Times change. And so does the response needed to deal with new threats and changing circumstances.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
