how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-02-14 12:12:28: Earlier this week the Senate passed a new FISA bill that gives AT&T and Verizon retroactive immunity for their decision to hand over your voice & Internet data to Uncle Sam without a warrant or court order. ..
| |
 Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
|  ????
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.
 | |
| | 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| 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. | |
| 
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! | |
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
1 edit | Re: pfftt.... Edit: Well that didn't come out right. Back to /dev/null for me. | |
| | | Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... 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.  | |
| | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... 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 | |
| | | | Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| 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. | |
| | | | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by Surfinusa :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. What makes you think there's going to be oversight? There hasn't been any oversight up until now, and the democrat leadership has now decided that the illegal activities of both the telcos and the administration should be swept under the rug.
There isn't proper oversight in this bill. The provisions for "oversight" have no teeth. | |
| | | | | | Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by JakCrow :What makes you think there's going to be oversight? There hasn't been any oversight up until now, and the democrat leadership has now decided that the illegal activities of both the telcos and the administration should be swept under the rug. There isn't proper oversight in this bill. The provisions for "oversight" have no teeth. To be honest I can't know for sure if there is any oversight even though they say there is.
So I am not going to worry about something at this point I have no control over. | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
| | | | | 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... Don't forget they have up to 72 hours AFTER they start a wiretap to get a warrant | |
| | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by nasadude :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. You just hit the nail directly on the head. They're pushing for immunity so hard because along with Commander Bunnypants and his entire misadministration, the telcos, did, in fact, break the law. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by morbo :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. Exactly, and the fact they were installing this black room equipment before 9.11.2001 throws the whole patriot argument out the window and is probably the only aspect of everything that they don't want seeing light in a court. As soon as this administration took office there was no limit to what would happen to better a select few. War is big money and we've been living in a country where money trumps the will of the people for some time now. | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... Im sure this mass wiretapping has been done ever since it became technologically feasiable. | |
| | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| You continue to overlook the fact that they violated our rights, REGARDLESS of who made the request because that is what you choose to do because you have a vested interest in the telcoms not being punished for breaking the law. You are as bad as they are, because you are willing to sell your rights for your portfolio. You know what they call a person that gives them self up for money?
There was oversight BEFORE they did this. It is called the judicial process that REQUIRED them to get a warrant BEFORE they started monitoring us. I don't care if Christ himself came down and asked for the monitoring, they were OBLIGATED by current law to get permission from an oversight authority established in the laws that existed the day they asked for it.
You continue to defend them because it is monetarily beneficial to you. However, I would say put your greed aside, sell your freaking stock and allow them to pay the price they SHOULD pay. Then rebuy their stock at a lower price so you don't look like such a corporate whore. | |
| | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
2 edits | 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. What the government did was illegal in requesting it in the first place and what the telecom did was equally illegal by giving it. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a need to give them retroactive immunity. What the telecoms should have done was tell the government to go fly a kite made of their request until they get a judicial order...that is what the FISA court is for to begin with.
Tapping phones and internet connections have yet to produce one credible instance where doing so prevented any type of terrorist attack. It's too easy to simply encrypt the data to make the actual tap worthless from an intelligence purpose.
As far as oversight goes, that too will be a joke. There was suppose to be oversight from the begin of FISA and the whole "super secret court". Yet we still got in to the predicament we are in today thanks to oversight or lack thereof. | |
| | | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by cdru :If it wasn't [illegal], there wouldn't be a need to give them retroactive immunity. That sounds a lot like the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you refuse to be searched?" There are a lot of good reasons to try to protect yourself from a civil suit. Doing so doesn't mean "you obviously did something wrong."
To me, this kind of imbalanced viewpoint (which seems to pervade the anti-immunity crowd) is precisely a justification for the telcos to seek it.
Mark | |
| | | | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... quote:
That sounds a lot like the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you refuse to be searched?" There are a lot of good reasons to try to protect yourself from a civil suit. Doing so doesn't mean "you obviously did something wrong.
Yes, those internal AT&T documents that show the company is funneling voice & data traffic from multiple carriers directly to the NSA without court authorization is purely hallucinatory in nature... | |
| | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by amigo_boy :said by cdru :If it wasn't [illegal], there wouldn't be a need to give them retroactive immunity. That sounds a lot like the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you refuse to be searched?" There are a lot of good reasons to try to protect yourself from a civil suit. Doing so doesn't mean "you obviously did something wrong." To me, this kind of imbalanced viewpoint (which seems to pervade the anti-immunity crowd) is precisely a justification for the telcos to seek it. Mark The telecom companies knowingly, and with reckless disregard for the civil rights of their customers, broke the law by assisting the Bush Administration in illegally wiretapping American citizens without even the flimsiest of excuses, and they should accept the fact that they were caught red-handed, and will have to face the consequences.
Every criminal wants to get away with their crime, and there is no blaming them for trying to do so. However, seeking immunity from prosecution and/or redress doesn't imply innocence, mistake or even plain negligence. They are prima facie guilty based on evidence already in hand, and further disclosures at trial may well broaden the charges against them and their accomplices. There is no way in hell that their feigned innocence is somehow enhanced by trying to obtain blanket immunity for their illegal transgressions before either side has had an opportunity to present their case in a court of law, be it civil or criminal. To suggest otherwise is not only imbalanced, but unbalanced (as in; deluded, nuts, deranged, and/or crazy). | |
| | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by ross :The telecom companies knowingly, and with reckless disregard for the civil rights of their customers, broke the law by assisting the Bush Administration The companies knowingly followed the Bush Administration which successfully lobbied to amend the laws to better accommodate the Administration's actions. How is that different than Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (violating existing property laws, requiring the 13th amendment to make it legal)? Or, Roosevelt's ships-for-bases deal (violating the Neutrality Act, requiring the Lend-Lease act to make it legal)?
If it was so obvious and reckless and illegal, why no impeachment? Why no censure? Not even a non-binding resolution critical of the President? Why no criminal indictments against telco officers?
This is where self-styled freedom fighters claim the system is corrupt and isn't working (just because the outcome isn't what they wanted it to be). Therefore, they'll seek perverted justice in a *civil* court (to fight a perverted system, all the while claiming to be on the high road, saving us from perversion).
I do agree with you that telco customers should have the ability to sue if they can prove damages due to violation of the contract they entered into. But, like so many things, a few people have ruined it for everyone else. The issue has been co-opted by too many people with a political agenda, seeking to accomplish in civil court what they couldn't through normal channels. It's no longer about valid, contractual customers suing for damages. They're just mules used to carry the political payload of the self-styled freedom fighters.
It's unfortunate.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by amigo_boy :The companies knowingly followed the Bush Administration which successfully lobbied to amend the laws to better accommodate the Administration's actions. How is that different than Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (violating existing property laws, requiring the 13th amendment to make it legal)? Or, Roosevelt's ships-for-bases deal (violating the Neutrality Act, requiring the Lend-Lease act to make it legal)? If it was so obvious and reckless and illegal, why no impeachment? Why no censure? Not even a non-binding resolution critical of the President? Why no criminal indictments against telco officers? This is where self-styled freedom fighters claim the system is corrupt and isn't working (just because the outcome isn't what they wanted it to be). Therefore, they'll seek perverted justice in a *civil* court (to fight a perverted system, all the while claiming to be on the high road, saving us from perversion). I do agree with you that telco customers should have the ability to sue if they can prove damages due to violation of the contract they entered into. But, like so many things, a few people have ruined it for everyone else. The issue has been co-opted by too many people with a political agenda, seeking to accomplish in civil court what they couldn't through normal channels. It's no longer about valid, contractual customers suing for damages. They're just mules used to carry the political payload of the self-styled freedom fighters. It's unfortunate. Mark Once again, your opinion is hopelessly illogical and maladroit.
Your major points, once distilled, seem to be (and, not necessarily in this order) non-exculpatory;
1) When criminals take over they can remake the law to absolve themselves from culpability, indictment and prosecution for their wrong-doings. (As in the case at hand.)
2) Politicians are darn slippery, and other politicians have a hard time bringing them to justice because they can visualize a similar fate might await them. (Yes, they are weasels, who do not eat their own except under the most dire, or the most trivial, circumstance.)
3) You believe, even lacking any other practical means or venue, civil court is an unjustified, perverted, unjust, untrustworthy and too easily manipulated forum in which to obtain some measure of redress of grievance against the hapless criminal lackey's of the criminal, but untouchable power elite. (And, ewww, money damages are somehow so yuckey!)
4) Protecting one's civil rights by seeking money damages is somehow dependent on the quantity of the injured parties pursuing redress, or sullies the altruism of their motive, and is somehow, um, er, cowardly?. (The common citizen is really an ignoramus and a dupe.) | |
| | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| 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. Even if they knew that request was less-than-legal to follow through with at that time? | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by TKJunkMail :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. If that is the case, why have an immunity provision in the first place?
Seems pretty clear to all, except the non-thinking, the Telecoms BROKE THE LAW! It doesn't matter if they were cajoled to do so by the Bush Administration, since the Bush Administration was clearly violating the law as well. Moreover, they were fully cognizant they were breaking the law, are unrepentant, and deserve to be made an example of lest anyone in the future consider aiding and abetting an illegal government program, no matter the circumstance. The telecoms had a legal, moral and fiduciary duty to protect their customers from illegal and unwarranted wiretapping ordered by the rogue Bush Administration acting outside their Constitutional and legal authority.
The redress of civil damages is as appropriate as prosecution of criminal charges for violating the rights of American citizens under the illegal clandestine programs initiated by the NSA et al at the behest of the President.
I say there should be no immunity for BUSH either. He and most of his staff/cabinet/administration should be brought up on charges, prosecuted, and sent to jail for a very long time. It will take decades to undo the harm Bush has brought upon us, our Constitution and our way of life. | |
| | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by ross :said by TKJunkMail :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. If that is the case, why have an immunity provision in the first place? Very simple. To protect the telcos from being harassed by the left wing Bush haters who are taking it out on the telcos by proxy because they don't have a case or the stones to take on Bush directly. It is the governments way of saying thank you for putting the security of the US ahead of your own private interests.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | 
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... The way of saying F U to citizens rights also. | |
| | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| 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 | |
| | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| said by Surfinusa :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. Are you a terrorist? No.It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The Postal Inspector can already do that if they have any suspicions. The FBI can do it as well.Were is the privacy and when and were do you draw the lines. They are looking for terrorists not chatting with friends about the movies.The only way to have privacy seems to be to talk in your own house or in person. Actually, TV's built since 1995 have "remote viewing" so, yes, they can already see you. --sarcasm--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. Do they need to watch you?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. Unless you are dealing with a terrorist organization, don't worry.I do understand the concerns on both sides.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
| | | | Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
1 edit | Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by supergirl :said by Surfinusa :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. Are you a terrorist? No.It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The Postal Inspector can already do that if they have any suspicions. The FBI can do it as well.Were is the privacy and when and were do you draw the lines. They are looking for terrorists not chatting with friends about the movies.The only way to have privacy seems to be to talk in your own house or in person. Actually, TV's built since 1995 have "remote viewing" so, yes, they can already see you. --sarcasm--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. Do they need to watch you?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. Unless you are dealing with a terrorist organization, don't worry.I do understand the concerns on both sides.  Thanks for the reassurance.
EDIT: No really I am fine now .. I am fine (paranoya) J/k | |
| | | | | | | satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype. | |
| | | Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by satellite68 :What's the sound of one hand clapping? Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype. LOL Dude, that's wacked. | |
| | | | |
See 32 replies to this post | |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... said by amigo_boy :Thanks for posting that. It's nice to see some *balance* on DSL Reports. Mark What? WTF would you know about balance? | |
| | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | If this administration wasn't republican, the fake conservatives would have demanded heads to roll over this and just about everything else that Bush and friends have done since they got in. | |
|
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. | |
| |
See 42 replies to this post | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Ways to keep your privacy I seriously don't get the point of doing this. You are not really trying to hide something that you're afraid to have discovered, I imagine. You're doing it on the principle of the thing. If it's the principle of the thing, how does encrypting your phone calls advance the principle? No one knows that you did it!
It's as if you were a black person in the civil rights movement in the 60s, and rather than marching, you hid in the woods where no white person could see you. And then you recommended to others that they do the same thing.
Seriously... I am not trying to start an argument... I literally do not understand the thought process behind wanting to do this. | |
| | |
See 53 replies to this post | |
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| bah The fact they were wiretapping before 9/11 shows that they can't use "oh the terroists made this a necessity" as it didn't prevent 9/11.
It is clear both the telco's and gov violated a law. Now they both would be held accountable normally but look who makes the laws. This is an abuse of powers and overides the set of checks and balances our founding fathers set out for the country. | |
| rileyjam514
There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
| Some notes... First, please, for the love of God, stop it with the Ben Franklin quoting. It's not like the man was always correct in everything he said or did! Yes, he was a smart person, yes he made some wonderful discoveries and helped our nation a great deal during a time of war, turmoil, discontent and upheaval. That doesn't mean that you need to quote him to death to support your positions.
Second, TK's right - this is just about immunity, not spying - for spying, please write a letter and address it to last week, when someone would've given a damn. Issue's over. Let it go.
Third, as my signature clearly states, I don't trust the telecom companies with American tax dollars - but that doesn't mean I despise everything they do. When a government law enforcement agency comes to you and asks for your help in the collection of evidence against suspected terrorists, even if you disagree with them you help them out because A) you'd rather they find the guy quietly than find out the hard way who it is on the news, when it's too late and you've got blood on your hands, B) you'd be able to say you aided a criminal investigation and would be able to sleep at night.
Fourth, cut the crap with regard to all this BS about your civil liberties being infringed because someone is able (key word here) to listen to your phone calls. If I've heard it once I've heard it a thousand times and I'm absolutely sick to death of it. Why? It's just not true! Think about it - no one's taking your conversation with your wife and spreading rumors or lies about you - if anything, they're quite private about what they do with what you say. For it to even come close to being a true violation, they'd have to broadcast it on loudspeakers and drive around the neighborhood with the recording playing. Even then, it would be a real stretch to call it a civil liberties violation (I would call it crass behavior and poor judgement on their part). And for those of you paying attention, I'm going by legal definitions here, not ACLU fluff. Legally, they'd simply have taken a recording and played it in public, which isn't a crime (at least as long as the RIAA/MPAA don't have their way).
Getting back to my point, I feel much safer when the government has the ability to listen to any calls it wants, or has the ability to nip terrorist activities in the bud. Don't punish the telecom companies because they performed a civil service to their nation - if you feel you must blame someone, you have the terrorists to look at. Without their islamofacist aggression, we would be in a much safer place and no one would worry about such things.
--
Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR! | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
kellodl
join:2005-01-23
Huntsville, AL | Immunity..... NO! I already called my representative and told him to vote NO for Telco Immunity.
Do your part people! Remember the government is there FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! | |
| | nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ | Change now thats true change...democrat controlled senate and house trumping Americans civil rights. True change...vote democrat 2008 | |
| | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Re: Change said by nutcr0cker :now thats true change...democrat controlled senate and house trumping Americans civil rights. True change...vote democrat 2008 The way I heard it, it was the Republicans who voted for the bill (and against the amendment that would remove telco immunity). Remember that Democrats only hold a sliver of a majority. Republicans are the ones not willing to discuss the bill further as they try to rubber-stamp Bush's agenda as they have done in the previous Congress. They voted for the bill in the Senate then did not even want to listen to Democrats as they passed the spying portion of the bill (boo) yet left the telco immunity to be discussed. The Republicans walked out claiming they will not compromise and will only accept a vote on the bill now.
What does that say about Republicans? Listening to America? Willing to compromise? No, stubbornly listening to their own rhetoric. Putting Americans' privacy, and putting justice (not just for American's, but for the corp whistle-blower) on the back burner.
The Dems may not be all bread and butter, but at least they are standing up for Americans' rights. The government can get all the spying they need done... with oversight though warrants that limit to terrorists and contacts, not all Americans and foreigners. Vote Republican in 08? Not a chance!
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | 
Wrong
@verizon.com
| Re: Change It's not about spying on Americans. There has to be a foreign component to the call in question.
This is all about giving a gift to trial lawyers who want to sue, and the Telcos have the deep pockets. The trial lawyers donate a pile to democrats. It's all about money.
Check your history, under Clinton we had the Echelon program. No one said boo about it. | |
| | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Re: Change said by Wrong :
It's not about spying on Americans. There has to be a foreign component to the call in question.
This is all about giving a gift to trial lawyers who want to sue, and the Telcos have the deep pockets. The trial lawyers donate a pile to democrats. It's all about money. If you had bothered to look into what is going on you would notice that the 'foreign' element is very lax, almost non-existant leavinging room for not only spying on citizens but mistakes, that is, tracking citizens mistakenly believed to be terrorists. It has already happened, I have know people who have lost property and their assets to the government who mistakenly (and never proved) marked them as terrorists. Also, that does not limit to phone calls. It also includes general personal information and internet surfing / communications data. There needs to be oversight, that is what a warrant does. It makes sure they can only access information about the person(s) they need to look into, and not others either intentionally or by mistake.
said by Wrong :
Check your history, under Clinton we had the Echelon program. No one said boo about it. Exactly why we are looking into 'secret' laws today. We didn't know what that one covered or did, today we are more vigilant and better off.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | One last chance to get some lawyers rich... ...on the backs of the telco customers. | |
| MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Kudos to Karl, but then I have to take it back for posting this story in a much less biased way than previous postings on this topic. He avoided using the term "illegal" which is good, because he's at least not arguing the conclusion.
Of course, he undoes all of this by only giving you a link to the EFF if you want to contact your congressperson. The only thing you can do from this page is send an email whose subject is "No immunity for lawbreaking telecoms!" Yes there's even an exclamation point in there, in case the message wasn't strident enough. You can edit the body of the message but not the subject. (!)
A truly unbiased story would have also given a link to send a message with the opposite point of view. Check out the topic here by TK Junk Mail for a different link.
Or, just call your congressperson. Phone calls seem to have more impact than emails, anyway. | |
| wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Bush prefers telcos over citizens Bush addressed the nation on this subject publicly today. He impressed that We, the people, would be exposed and at great risk if this bill is not approved. He also announced that he will veto ANY bill that does not grant this immunity to the telcos. Bush would choose to assist the telecom companies over the safety of We the people. What a colossal blunder. It really shows where his interests lie, doesn't it?
cw | |
| | 
rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | Re: Bush prefers telcos over citizens If the rules were broken in the past in order to protect the people, then they can be broken again for the same purpose. That means the President can veto the bill and still protect the people by breaking the existing rules. No problem. | |
| | | 
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·Bresnan Online
| Re: Bush prefers telcos over citizens This just wants me to encrypt all traffic going in and out of my house even more.
What's preventing the RIAA/MPAA of using this information to find file sharers? What happens if you get a LEGAL copy of a music track, then get nailed by the RIAA for "piracy"? What about downloaded legal software? Where does it stop?
The thing is, if events continue to follow the course, we'd be no better than China.
Just wait.. Soon they'll be filtering our internet data so we can only see what they want us to and we'll get into trouble if we bump into the wrong areas.
..and I love Bush's motto.. "If you don't agree with me, you're a terrorist".
--
Bresnan 15M/1M | My Computer (P4 1.8GHz, 3GB RAM, 80+160GB HDDs, Vista) | Wife's Computer (Duron 2.15GHz, 1GB RAM, 40GB HDD, Vista) | Router (P2 450MHz, 224MB RAM, 40GB HDD, AT-2560FX, 2x DE504, Atheros AR5212, DGE-500T, EtherLink III running Gentoo) | |
| | | |
|
If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
68 (82.9%)