how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2008-07-29 09:12:58: Congress may have already voted to give AT&T, Verizon and Sprint civil immunity for handing your phone and Internet data over wholesale to Uncle Sam without a warrant, but opponents of the move aren't sitting still. ..
|
 deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Too little, too late The 4th Amendment was dead and buried a long time ago. If anyone truly believed that Congress would actually do the will of the majority of the people and kill the FISA/Telecom Immunity then they needed their head examined.
Was never going to happen. It sucks for us - but that's just the way it is. Neither the Administration or Congress give two shits about our rights. | |
| | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Too little, too late said by fAcEtIOUs:said by deadzoned:The 4th Amendment was dead and buried a long time ago. If anyone truly believed that Congress would actually do the will of the majority of the people and kill the FISA/Telecom Immunity then they needed their head examined. They did the will of the majority. They just didn't do the will of the left wing America haters. Oddly enough, I seem to recall that when the majority didn't want to pursue the impeachment of Bill Clinton, we all got lectured about how this is a Constitutional Republic. But I suppose if the Constitution is inconvenient for the right administration's purposes, it doesn't matter, right?
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | Re: Too little, too late said by Corydon:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by deadzoned:
The 4th Amendment was dead and buried a long time ago. If anyone truly believed that Congress would actually do the will of the majority of the people and kill the FISA/Telecom Immunity then they needed their head examined. . They did the will of the majority. They just didn't do the will of the left wing America haters. Oddly enough, I seem to recall that when the majority didn't want to pursue the impeachment of Bill Clinton, we all got lectured about how this is a Constitutional Republic. Any links?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
2 edits | Re: Too little, too late Mark Fiore has a great little satire on this.
"Snuggly, the Security Teddy Bear!"
I love his site, his cartoons always make me laugh.
»www.markfiore.com/
It's the one called "Constitutional Compromise"
P.S. "PolitiShop" is awesome too 
Actually... they are all excellent. One reason I love his site. | |
| | | | | |
| | deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Left Wing America haters?! What the hell man? They DIRECTLY VIOLATED our 4th Amendment Rights! Do you not care at all that this has happened? Are you that big of a sack of slobbering fear that you care nothing about your personal rights and freedoms in this country?
I tell you what - keep your spineless, fear of everything point of view to yourself.
Now get back to cowering in fear in the closet from the next imminent terrorist attack that is supposedly coming. GET! | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by deadzoned:They DIRECTLY VIOLATED our 4th Amendment Rights! The 4th Amendment isn't absolute. It qualifies searches with the word "reasonable." Constantly changing due to modern circumstances.
Just as the Constitution itself came into being 10 years after the Articles of Confederation -- due to changing circumstances. The Founding generation *wanted* larger and more intrusive government because, after just 10 years, the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation weren't working. That's when they qualified the protection against searches with the word "reasonable." They knew how circumstances change over time.
Mark | |
| | | | | deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Re: Too little, too late So you feel that the Telecom's handing over our information wholesale to the Government is "reasonable"? Sure circumstances change but what they did is ridiculous and pretty much is a case study in unreasonable IMHO.
They did it in secret for years, we have no way of ever knowing what information they got and how much of it they got and it's just sitting in the Government's hands now. Does this not seem to be a bad thing to you? Our private data - in the Government's hands. Sure, they have shown time and time again how good they are about taking care of our information - now if it's there own - well that's a different thing of course. No oversight or checks and balances when it comes to our information! You know, to protect us from teh terrorrre | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by deadzoned:So you feel that the Telecom's handing over our information wholesale to the Government is "reasonable"? That's what the Supreme Court is for. Not civil courts.
Personally, I believe it can be reasonable. It depends on the data they are given. Often, self-styled freedom fighters lump everything under one "wire tapping" slur.
For example, we hear the NSA is sucking up all traffic for data mining. If that is just to maintain the equivalent of "call records" (who/what you've contacted, but not the content) that seems reasonable to me. That information doesn't exist. Which, IMO, is a shortcoming because it traditionally has existed for phone calls. In this case, it would either cost a fortune to require ISPs to maintain that kind of history, or the government can do it.
You have to remember, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) says telcos can hand over data without a warrant (if the AG certifies no warrant is necessary). This law has been on the books for years. Therefore, it was completely reasonable for the AG to certify a warrant wasn't necessary. And, for the telcos to accept that certification.
IMO, it would be better to work to get that law changed rather than cry about how it was used, and how the so-called "immunity" deal affirmed that law (by granting immunity if the telco could produce certification from the AG).
Really, it's shameful how so many people did nothing to change that law for all these decades. And then blame everyone else (the government, telcos) because the law was used.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Too little, too late TK's other troll (Only missing PNH) has come here to add his comments.
First off, these laws were NOT on the books. FISA DOES NOT allow for unwarranted gathering of information. It stated that the government still had to get warrants (which were never denied but once or twice), for all their activities. Bush couldn't even take the five minutes to go to this sham court, and get a rubber stamp. That's why everyone is up and arms. We all know he could have covered his ass, and done this a legal route. He chose to spit in the face of Americans, as he didn't want oversight.
Better yet, these cooperating ISPS were awarded 100s of millions in Government Contracts for taking part. QWEST on the other hand lost those, when they refused. Funny, huh? These companies knew damn well their actions weren't legal, but they saw the big bucks flowing their way and didn't care. So yes, they are JUST AS GUILTY as the Bush administration is for not properly following the law. Otherwise, THEY WOULDN'T need immunity. One doesn't need this if he or she doesn't fear the end result.
As for that law you stated, it doesn't trump the fact FISA still requires a warrant. Being there is and was no oversight, NO ONE can tell what information we shared. However, if the 1000s of unwarranted and illegal FBI letters tell us anything, then we're all probably having quite a bit of our lives collected. After all, the FBI was sending out rubber stamp letters in droves to illegally acquire information on law abiding Americans. What do you think the NSA is doing, anything different? | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Too little, too late said by jc100:First off, these laws were NOT on the books. FISA DOES NOT allow The laws (2511 and 2702) have been on the books for years. They aren't FISA, and weren't repealed by FISA.
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) says telcos can give data to the government if the Attorney General certifies no warrant is necessary. 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) says telcos can provide data if they have a "good faith" belief that "danger" exists.
It's important to note that 2702 was amended in 2006 to change "reasonable" belief in "imminent danger" to "good faith" belief in "danger" (not imminent). That is a significant lowering of the threshold. And, if the only law that applies is FISA, why would Congress amend a law that has no application?
Furthermore, the so-called "immunity" deal essentially restated 2511. It limited immunity to those telcos that could provide certification from the AG. Essentially, Congress affirmed 2511. Using its language to short-circuit the lengthy civil-suit process.
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Too little, too late First off,
FISA is the act that the government abides by. It clearly states a government must go to a secret court for a warrant. This warrant, once again, is given 99 percent of the time. Bush and Company couldn't even go that route.
Second, the act you stated was amended in 2006, AFTER the fact, to make the bar lower. That doesn't change what happened before.
Third, there was no eminent danger. That's the other thing. We could use that for all arguments. I can wire tap your phone based on some falsified belief you are a terrorist. That's quite a LOW BAR to jump. Do you really want to set the checks and balances of our government to that little of a standard? I'd hope not. Therefore, I do blame whomever made this law and kept it on the books. Still, NOTHING changes that this law was amended AFTER many laws were broken.
Fourth, Fisa STILL contradicts this vary law, if you even want to assume both were on the books at the same time and what you said is accurate. Therefore, the COURTS should clear it up, not Congress. Congress seems to have its agenda pre set in covering for the Telcos by an means possible.
Finally, giving immunity IMPLIES you've done something wrong. Immunity is never needed when one's hands are clean. Simple as that. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Mark, Mark, Mark. Please stop beating this dead horse. This is incident #5,287 on dslreports.com that you are citing Sections of the U.S. Code that you don't even know WTF they mean. Please consult with Rush et al. and find different material to justify why the telco industry and Executive Branch are one and the same thing. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by SilverSurfer1:Mark, Mark, Mark. Please stop beating this dead horse. Wow. You professed your love for the rule of law. And just one post later, you want everyone to ignore a couple laws just because they don't say what you want them to say.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Too little, too late §2511 and §2518 only grant the AG authority to conduct a wiretap without a warrant under the following circumstances:
an emergency situation exists that involves—
(i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person,
(ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or
(iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime,
that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained, and
(b) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter to authorize such interception, In addition, they must obtain the proper court order within 48 hours of commencing the wiretap.
[T]he Attorney General [...] may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur. §2511 does not authorize wholesale vacuuming up and handover of call records willy-nilly with never a court order, which is exactly what was going on.
They broke the law, period. The government (both Republicans and Democrats) is now acting as if it were an accessory after the fact to help the telcos get away with it.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by Corydon:§2511 and §2518 only grant 2511 is not dependent upon 2518. It only refers to 2518 for the definition of the "person" capable of certifying no warrant is necessary. Not for the procedures of certification.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Too little, too late Right, exactly. §2518 defines who can certify that no warrant is necessary.
Read §2518 (7). It directly addresses the ability of law enforcement to wiretap without a warrant in an emergency situation. It also requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant within 48 hours of commencing the wiretap.
And §2511 (2) (a) (ii) (B) explicitly states that the AG must certify "that all statutory requirements have been met", presumably including the rules in §2518.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by Corydon:Right, exactly. §2518 defines who can certify that no warrant is necessary. Read §2518 (7). It directly addresses the ability of law enforcement to wiretap without a warrant in an emergency situation. It also requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant within 48 hours of commencing the wiretap. And §2511 (2) (a) (ii) (B) explicitly states that the AG must certify "that all statutory requirements have been met", presumably including the rules in §2518. But, 2518 (7) is only referenced for the purpose of identifying individuals who can certify a warrant isn't necessary. Not for the procedures or limitations of such certification.
2518 mentions nothing about certification. If 2511's "all statutory requirements" language meant that it's dependent upon 2518's 48-hour limitation, it would just refer to 2518 for the definition of when a warrant isn't necessary. Not refer to it just for the definition of "people" who can "certify" (a new term not even in 2518) a warrant isn't necessary.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Corydon:Right, exactly. §2518 defines who can certify that no warrant is necessary. BTW: My point in an earlier reply is that the problem is that the surveillance laws are incoherent. 2511 refers to 2518 to define people, but not to define limits on when warrants aren't necessary (or to define what "certification" is, its limitations, etc., which isn't even mentioned in 2518).
If 2518 really did supersede 2511, limiting what "certification" means, or how long it can last, then 2702 could be used, without any limitations. 2702's "good-faith" belief of "danger" in an "emergency" is even weaker than the same justification for 2518's 48-hour warrantless surveillance.
I mean, if someone were going to use 2511 for unlimited warrantless surveillance, but 2518 really limits it, the language of 2518 would cause 2702 to be applicable, which is limitless (not even requiring certification by the AG, or anyone listed in 2518).
So, my point is, I'm not saying 2511 (or 2702) are good laws. Just that the hodgepodge of laws (created at different times for different purposes) is the problem. There is no single, coherent law concerning surveillance. There should be.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | Wiretapping and data mining are two different issues. Based on what I have read, the data handed over by the telcos was done with their consent. I have tried to find in the law where this is prohibited and I have not found it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
--
Save water...drink beer! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by drslash:I have tried to find in the law where this is prohibited and I have not found it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 18 USC 2511 and 2702 define penalties for disclosure of communications and customer records. The problem (for those opposed to expanded government powers) is that they have loopholes you can drive a truck through.
2702 allowed telcos to provide customer data if they had a "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger." This was amended in 2006 to lower the standard to "good-faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent). Obviously it is a lower standard. Congress wouldn't have amended it if they weren't lowering the standard.
2511 provides for prison and statutory damages. But, without any qualification, allows the telcos to turnover data if the AG certifies no warrant is necessary.
Ironically, 2511 (2) (a) (ii) says that any telco employee who divulges the presence of surveillance is subject to the same penalties that a telco is subject to if it releases customer data without a warrant or certification by the AG.
What makes this so funny is how self-styled freedom fighters profess their love for the "rule of law." Except for that one. 
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | §2702 (a) covers both customer communications (wiretapping) and the records pertaining to customers or subscribers (data mining).
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
|
| | | | | drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | said by deadzoned:So you feel that the Telecom's handing over our information wholesale to the Government is "reasonable"? Sure circumstances change but what they did is ridiculous and pretty much is a case study in unreasonable IMHO. They did it in secret for years, we have no way of ever knowing what information they got and how much of it they got and it's just sitting in the Government's hands now. Does this not seem to be a bad thing to you? Our private data - in the Government's hands. Sure, they have shown time and time again how good they are about taking care of our information - now if it's there own - well that's a different thing of course. No oversight or checks and balances when it comes to our information! You know, to protect us from teh terrorrre There is no 4th amendment rights violated here. The government asked for the information from the telcos and they gave it up. The government did not break down the door and seize the information. The problem is that the telcos may have broken a privacy promise with their customers.
Karl and the the rest of you left wing loons just don't seem to get it. A 4th amendment violation consists of a government search without permission. The telcos gave their permission (I believe Qwest held back from the governemt).
--
Save water...drink beer! | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by drslash:There is no 4th amendment rights violated here. The government asked for the information from the telcos and they gave it up. That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. But, it seems like splitting hairs. Telcos are only allowed to provide the data (legally, absent statutory damages) if the government provides a warrant, or the AG certifies no warrant is necessary. So, the request had to be within the framework of the law (which presumably is intended to balance one's right to be secure in their personal effects, and government's exercise of probable cause).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | said by drslash:There is no 4th amendment rights violated here. The government asked for the information from the telcos and they gave it up. The government did not break down the door and seize the information. The problem is that the telcos may have broken a privacy promise with their customers. Except that the permission was not the telcos' to give. The statute (§2702) clearly states that the telcos are forbidden to hand over that information except under extremely limited circumstances I have discussed elsewhere.
Basically, you either need the permission of the customer or you need a warrant (which you can get in an emergency up to 48 hours after you begin wiretapping).
[A] person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service—
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity. They broke the law, period.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by Corydon:Except that the permission was not the telcos' to give. The statute ( §2702) clearly states that the telcos are forbidden to hand over that information except under extremely limited circumstances Remember, 18 USC 2702 was amended in 2006 to lower the threshold. Telcos only need a "good faith" belief (not "reasonable" belief) of "danger" (not imminent danger).
Presumably, the NSA could disclose some plots they'd uncovered, and this would satisfy the very slim requirement.
Basically, the amendment of 2702, and Congress's recent affirmation of 2511 in the immunity deal (tying immunity to the requirement plainly stated in 2511) shows that Congress doesn't interpret these laws the way you do.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Too little, too late I believe that this is the section you are referring to:
to a governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency. [emphasis added] Unless you accept the reasoning that we are now in a permanent state of emergency, starting with 9/11 and extending to the present day, I don't see any way that you can use this clause to justify what they did.
And even if you do accept a permanent state of emergency, how can you show that the call records of millions of people "relat[e] to the emergency"?
I might buy that argument if they were just doing this to a handful of people who really looked like they were plotting something. But they were doing it to everyone.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by Corydon:Unless you accept the reasoning that we are now in a permanent state of emergency, starting with 9/11 Did you read AG Gonzalez's paper? That is their reasoning. And, again, 2702 was amended in 2006 to lower the threshold. Obviously, Congress reduced the level of "belief" and urgency of the "danger" for a reason. Presumably they didn't believe the definition of "emergency" affected anything.
said by Corydon:And even if you do accept a permanent state of emergency, how can you show that the call records of millions of people "relat[e] to the emergency"? As I stated before, the problem is that those call records don't exist. The choice is to mandate ISPs collect the internet equivalent to "call records" (what has been available for traditional telephone use). Or, maintain that information at the government.
I'd be ok with mandating ISPs maintain that info so it is available when needed. But, I think people would complain about that mandate as much as they do about the government maintaining it for the ISPs.
Either way, that is the conundrum. There is no good answer. Purists might say there should be no call records. Even no traditional telephone call records. But, that ship already left the harbor. Traditional call records have existed for decades and have contributed greatly to law enforcement's job of investigating crimes either after they've been committed, or due to probable cause. That tool is absent from internet communications. When a muslim flies a jet into a skyscrapper, there is no way to examine who he's "talked to" on the internet. But, we can examine who he's talked to with his phone.
That's a deficiency.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Too little, too late If all your advocating is that telcos maintain records for a certain period of time to be made available in the event that they are needed, then there's no point of disagreement between us. As you point out, that's the way it's been for decades. And, as a matter of fact, destroying those records would not even be in the consumer's best interest—I like being able to see my own calling records online which is something Comcast allows me to do.
I think the evidence that is available so far shows that it in fact went well beyond merely maintaining records in the event the government needed them. Instead they turned over that information to the government without proper authorization. That was the crux of the civil suit, and that is the behavior that I want to prevent.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by Corydon:If all your advocating is that telcos maintain records for a certain period of time to be made available in the event that they are needed, then there's no point of disagreement between us. Yes, that's what I'm advocating. Or, just pointing out that there is a gap with internet communications compared to traditional communications.
I don't know ISPs can be required to maintain the equivalent of "call records." It would be a lot of data. The date and time of every web site visited, email sent/received, VOIP calls, ssh file transfers.
That information just happens to exist for telephones because that's how phone companies billed. And, it's not a lot of data. It might not be constitutional to require retention of the data.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Too little, too late said by amigo_boy:I don't know ISPs can be required to maintain the equivalent of "call records." It would be a lot of data. The date and time of every web site visited, email sent/received, VOIP calls, ssh file transfers. Now you are treading into a sticky area. Carriers should track their own VOIP call records, but they should be snooping into 3rd party traffic. The details of what websites you look at, email, and other transactions should not be harvested in bulk. And they should definitely not be turned over in bulk to the government in their raw forms. They don't need to know what websites I'm visiting, the content of my email, or posts, or what files I choose to download from the internet. Unless they obtain a warrant first, and then begin looking. Because I do not trust that my data will not be sold for advertising revenue by the ISP, and I do not trust that the government will not be combing through the data looking to weed out infidels.
cw | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Too little, too late said by wentlanc:Carriers should track their own VOIP call records, but they should be snooping into 3rd party traffic. The details of what websites you look at, email, and other transactions should not be harvested in bulk. Why should phone calls (voip or traditional) be retained as an activity record, but not other communications?
said by wentlanc:And they should definitely not be turned over in bulk to the government in their raw forms. They don't need to know ... That's the rub, isn't it? Can the government force ISPs to keep records so they can be looked at when warranted? Or, should the government keep that data, so it can look at it when necessary?
It's not like it's private data. It hops around dozens of companies with which you have no contractual relationship. You're not their customer. No assurance of security. If someone wants security they'd use encryption. Just like, if I want privacy I won't stand on a street corner and discuss private matters.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Too little, too late For anyone wanting to dig into the matter and find out how full of CRAP Amigo boy is by selectively picking Clauses, and trying to hide their FULL MEANING.. Feel free to read here. It reaffirms ALL MY TALKING POINTS, and then some. While Amigo Boy's pastes are listed, they are also subjugated and limited by MANY OTHER ones he failed to mention. Typical.
Oversight Needed (Even with AG)
Specified Target
Time Frame
Documents released if a court gives order (Any Court)
Reason for Wiretap
Among Many other Guidelines.
Due to Amigo suffering from HALF TRUTH syndrome, you wouldn't expect him to be up front. That's what people of his ideological intelligence tend to do. They will select words of phrases, and hope people don't continue reading. It's what you call trying to be deceptive and dishonest. Strange, Amigo Boy deceptive and dishonest? Unheard of...
SEE HERE FOR ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO MAKE A FOOL OUT OF AMIGOS HALF TRUTHS. Talk about Self Stymied..
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/searc···00-.html
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···00-.html | |
|
| | | | | | | drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA
1 edit | said by Corydon:said by drslash:There is no 4th amendment rights violated here. The government asked for the information from the telcos and they gave it up. The government did not break down the door and seize the information. The problem is that the telcos may have broken a privacy promise with their customers. Except that the permission was not the telcos' to give. The statute ( §2702) clearly states that the telcos are forbidden to hand over that information except under extremely limited circumstances I have discussed elsewhere. Basically, you either need the permission of the customer or you need a warrant (which you can get in an emergency up to 48 hours after you begin wiretapping). [A] person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service—
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity. They broke the law, period. I have read that before and I don't think it is clear if the contents of what the telcos gave to the government is not totally known. The telcos gave 'data' for analysis. The 'data' is presumably call records (not the calls, texts, emails contents) that were tied to an international destination. The 'data' could be organized in such a fashion that the caller's identity would not be known. Supposedly this is how the 'data' was handed over. Unless the 'data' in question can be seen, no definitive statements about laws being broken or rights being violated can be made.
edit:clarification of call records
--
Save water...drink beer! | |
| | | | | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
| | | | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | The government had no right to request it, nor did they follow the documented procedure to do so. They broke the law.
The telcos had no right to turn it over, some of which (Quest) understood that. They broke the law.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Keep trying to spin it so it works....
cw | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Monitoring and wiretapping is *NOT* "asking for information" and most certainly IS covered, and, if done illegally, is a 4th Amendment violation.
Sheesh. Maybe you and the other "loons" are the ones who really don't get it.
As for "permission" to search, it's permission of the citizen .... not the "permission" of the phone company to listen in..... duh!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | | drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | Re: Too little, too late The government asked the telcos for 'data' about calls that had international connections. The telcos gave up some 'data' based on that government request. I am not talking about wiretaps or monitoring here. I am talking about data mining. If the 'data' was formatted and aggregated a certain way then the individual customer (citizen) would not need to give permission for the data to be handed over. Since we don't know what the 'data' contained we can't make definitive statements about any wrong doing by the government or the telcos.
In my opinion, the government and the telcos are on more solid legal ground regarding warrantless wiretaps of international calls, texts, and emails. I agree that there are questions to be asked about the data mining activities. Since national security is the central issue it may be a very long time before there are answers to some questions.
--
Save water...drink beer! | |
|
| | | | | | Interesting interpretation considering the portion of the text which is most in question is completely outside your entire argument.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The issue at hand has nearly nothing to do with a legal interpretation of 'reasonable.' Tt does however have everything to do with legal process, court oversight, separation of powers, and an industry complicit with a rogue branch of government performing acts far beyond their charter. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by deadzoned:... They DIRECTLY VIOLATED our 4th Amendment Rights! Do you not care at all that this has happened? ... apparently, he doesn't; unfortunately, nor do a majority of our elected representatives and a large swath of the public.
I'm not sure it's fear as much as it is wanting "Big Daddy" to take care of them and make decisions for them - it's much easier to blindly follow without thinking, especially when someone is authoritarian. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Will of what majority? TK, your comments are JUNK MAIL. Since when has selling out America been in the majority? I want to know. Obviously, these terrorist acts are an every day occurrence. So much so, you can name someone that was involved in one, right? I bet not. Yet, I guarantee you can name a family friend or relative who has been a victim of murder or crime. Yes, this country has 16-22,000 MURDERS a year. Since 2001, 120-140,000 AMERICANS have been MURDERED by AMERICANS. This compared to 3000 dead by terrorists. You tell me, why don't we outlaw guns also? Better yet, why don't we outlaw the right to congregate. We'd stop crime if only we didn't let kids stand around and talk to one another. Lets make a law, you must be 18 to associate with people. This way, kids can't be roped into gangs. Better yet, there are 40,000 auto accidents a year. Let's make a law that you can't drive unless you are 40. This way, you are mature enough to operate a car. People over the age of 40 have a lot lower accident rate than people 16-24. Finally, lest we not forget the news recently of an AMERICAN being involved in an attack on India. Furthermore, I am sure you saw the Church member who shot and KILLED people in Tennessee. Humm.... We've had prob 100 school shootings / office shootings similar to this. I saw let's outlaw guns. Obviously, these lunatics speak for ALL GUN owners. Therefore, the NRA should be outlawed and anyone in possession of a gun arrested. Who knows, they might be the next American Terrorist. See how dumb your logic sounds. Probably not. There's not a morsel of intelligence in that empty space of yours called a head.
P.S. Ever notice how everything is a Constitutional Question until it doesn't suit those who want to justify their acts? | |
| | |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by fAcEtIOUs:They did the will of the majority. They just didn't do the will of the left wing America haters. OK, I've been on the fence about this for a while, not anymore. You are a troll. | |
| | | | | said by fAcEtIOUs:They did the will of the majority. They just didn't do the will of the left wing America haters. LMAO - right. Because wanting to hold those who violate our rule of law accountable is a left wing kind of thing. | |
| | | |
See 86 replies to this post | |
| | | | said by fAcEtIOUs:They did the will of the majority. They just didn't do the will of the left wing America haters. Being one of those "America Haters" I often see the other side of these issues and try and find a middle ground. Then someone like you comes along and acts like a flaming troll and ruins any hope I had that Conservatives really do care about anything but their own bottom line.
--
OASAASLLS | |
| | |  bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
1 edit | Edit: my reply to TK was way over the line | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| that's not gonna happen "The group apparently hopes that shaming politicians after the fact will have some impact on future votes."
politicians apparently no longer have any shame (can you say "Larry Craig"?), so this simply isn't going to happen.
the only thing that appears to motivate most politicians these days is 1) money, 2) a strong primary challenge.
oh, don't forget David Vitter; politicians having shame - that's a good one! | |
| | | | Re: that's not gonna happen said by nasadude:oh, don't forget David Vitter; politicians having shame - that's a good one! Yeah, funny how that guy called for the resignation for another member of the Louisiana political establishment when he was caught being unfaithful to his wife a couple of years ago, but when he was caught doing the same thing with an escort service, he refused to resign. Hypocrite.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: that's not gonna happen Yeah, sort of reminds me of John Edwards. | |
| | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: that's not gonna happen How is that? | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
1 edit | They're as ignorant as most of America The buzzwords in the ad were "warrantless wiretaps" "4th Amendment" and "Fisa".
Hey there GFR people; got a suggestion for you.
How about a quick nod to the idea that;
AT&T COPYING ALL of YOUR PERSONAL DATA
is a bad idea?
This pack just seemed to read the talking points form every other Democratic group that is too frightened to mention the elephant in the room.
Grow up or get out of politics, already.
NV
edit:eh, who cares why
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
| | | | Re: They're as ignorant as most of America You forgot a few other Buzz Words.
Gay Marriage - Constitutional Ban was the word of the week for a while?
Abortion - Funny how these politicians want it outlawed and pushed into back allies. These overly moral people of course, who never have affairs, steal in office, and betray the trust of the public. Unbeknownst to us, they'd probably take their 16 year old kid to a clinic for one, in the states it remained legal.
Terrorist - Look around the corner, the big bad boogey man is out to get you....
So on so forth.
Americans are STUPID as a whole. We are so dumbfounded by buzz words and infighting, we let these yahoos direct us away from the issues. They do a wonderful job at that, too. You basically are electing Mo or Curly, and hoping one of these stooges doesn't mess up too bad. That's a tall order. Instead, we need to hold our elected people accountable, and get past the rhetoric and promises. You'd think we'd know by now that half the stuff they say are lies and the back and forth gets them nowhere but good distractions. | |
|
| | He did what this consituent wanted! It's a dead issue at this point...or it certainly should be. | |
| | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: He did what this consituent wanted! The wholesale sell-off of our Constitutional rights should NEVER be a dead issue! But it is sheeople like you that allow this to happen. | |
|
| | I hope I sure hope that they say exactly who voted for the bill
It would be nice if they called out Obama on his flip flop | |
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
4 edits | Har-de-har-har, How does it feel...... A grass-roots funded (by George Soros) ad' to educate people how the left wing, Lord Obama, St Boxer, St Reid, and the other heavenly hosts on the liberal side will betray the America is "The Root of all Evil" crowd.
P.S. in order to better understand this editorial cartoon some of the representations need to be explained. The person in the straight jacket is Congressman Pete Stark 13th distric California, who will suck anything to be relected, SCHIP stands for State Children's Health Insurance Program which the Democraps wanted to extend to just about every child, and not just the children who actually needed it, and made out like Bush was going to shut the program down completely. The Chicken headed lady is Senator Boxer, and the Fat baby is on the lap of Senator Reid.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
| |  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
1 edit |  They are all scum
| |
| | | | | Re: They are all scum said by mrchris:I guess this makes politicians the lowest form of life on this planet, right above lawyers followed by pedophiles and religious fanatics. Until you need an attorney, of course. Then you'll be singing an entirely different tune. | |
|
| | | Re: Har-de-har-har, How does it feel...... said by Transmaster:A grass-roots funded (by George Soros) ad' to educate people how the left wing, Lord Obama, St Boxer, St Reid, and the other heavenly hosts on the liberal side will betray the America is "The Root of all Evil" crowd. What is this "America is the root of all evil crowd" you speak of? I don't think I've ever seen anyone here post anything even remotely like that. | |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | To avoid rehashing the FISA debate again... ...I'd like to point out that the startup behind this effort is offering folks the ability to place an ad on cable TV for as little as $6.
Whatever your political persuasion, this is an amazing development. How difficult would it be to amass the money to run an ad in even the most expensive markets?
No doubt prices will increase as more people and groups discover the service; broadcast time is a limited commodity after all. But still, this has the potential to really expand the netroots to a much larger audience.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." | |
| | | Under the radar Because none of us here are privy to the classified briefings, we cannot say how close we have come to another 9/11. I don't know what is going on under the radar, so I'm not going to take the the Russ Feingold side of this argument. Whenever I find myself agreeing with Sen. Feingold, I get this superior-than-thou attitude, which last the rest of the day. Then it passes. | |
| |
See 17 replies to this post | |
| | (spare) change as promised by Nobama LOL...Osama and Obama working in tandem to curtail our rights.....Seems like Obama has a lots of spare change. The best way to send a message to NObama is to vote McBush....tell Nobama shove up your spare change up michelle's piehole. Kerry was stupid and Nobama looks even further idiotic. If we wanted Bush's policy we might as well keep Bush in office. | |
| blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL | . "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: . said by blips:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin Notice how Franklin qualified liberty and safety? Indicating that there are unessential liberties, and permanent safeties? And, more importantly, it may be legitimate to give up even essential liberty for permanent safety?
This interpretation is consistent with the Founders actions. Just 10 years after the Revolution, and living under the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation, they ditched it in favor of the *vastly* larger and intrusive federal constitution (1789).
They were willing to trade essential liberties for permanent safety. They did it more than any generation since (with the possible exception of the civil war generation, who eliminated any possibility to withdraw from the union).
Mark | |
| | | | | Re: . Sigh... Your bullshit is boring me now. | |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Grow up little chirldren. It is not TPC but the government YOU voted in. You did vote did you not.
You suckled at the poison teat of MCI/WorldCom, now you remind me of a line in a play. You are one
quote:
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Ma Bell is dead and yet the people strut and fret, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | Re: Grow up little chirldren. And the people vomited out the infestation known as Ma Bell, and said "Begone with you!"
... and for a time, peace was upon us all... but the disease proved hardly, and is growing like a tumor, to return the people back to the great sickness.
C'mon, C'mon, get down with the sickness! | |
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Grow up little chirldren. said by KrK:And the people vomited out the infestation known as Ma Bell, and said "Begone with you!" ... and for a time, peace was upon us all... but the disease proved hardly, and is growing like a tumor, to return the people back to the great sickness. C'mon, C'mon, get down with the sickness! Tell me the story of MCI/WorlCom. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Grow up little chirldren. said by batterup:Tell me the story of MCI/WorlCom. Ok. There once was the Giant known as Goliath...er I mean Ma Bell. And a simple Shepard's boy known as David (/MCI)...
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | Obama FISA Today »blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trai···ill.html
During the hour-long session, according to people in the room, Obama emphasized his plan to reach out to congressional Democrats, both during his campaign and his presumptive administration. Obama touched on subjects ranging from Iran and FISA to energy policy and Justice Department malfeasance.
Obama was particularly pointed in discussing recent reports of partisanship and other malfeasance at the Justice Department. "He said his first order of business will be to direct his attorney general to find out what's gone wrong there," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) said after the meeting that Obama reminded him of the last Democratic occupant of the White House. "It's very similar in manner to dealing with President Clinton. There isn't a thing that he can't answer, any question he can't just wow you with in terms of his answer," Kennedy said. | |
|
| |
|
