ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | Immunity The NSA was functioning on an interpretation of law that was unclear on roles of authority (Executive or Legislative).
Now that the laws & their interpretation have been reviewed by the courts and since updated, I don't think it's right to go back and prosecute those who merely attempted to comply based on the earlier interpretation, flawed or otherwise.
It's isn't up to Verizon, AT&T or their ilk to filter which law enforcement requests they can and cannot respond to.
I hate seeing so much dough going to someone's coffers for anything legislative, but to hold the carriers accountable for a flawed legal process is broken too. |
|
| umm... that's what FISA does
And At&t has been dealing with this kind of request since FISA courts were implemented in the 70's.
The interpretation of the courts is quite clear.
Also can I direct your attention to the wired story at the bottom of the article? |
|
claco
join:2002-09-29
Tallmadge, OH
1 edit | reply to ricep5
I sort of agree, but at the same time, Qwest didn't cave in. Why is that? MY biggest gripe isn't necessarily giving the telcos immunity for cooperating, it's giving them blanket immunity for something which is not known, has no oversight and is completely outside the checks and balances for which congress has the duty to perform. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to ricep5
the facts of the case are clear: AT&T and Verizon violated the law at the request of the NSA and the administration. In turn, they got favors from the government. AT&T got merger approval. Verizon got...what did they get? Qwest, the telco that refused to break the law was punished. Now AT&T and Verizon are lobbying their assess off to get this immunity.
the blame is squarely on the AT&T and Verizon. they knew the law yet they decided to break the law at their own peril. now it is judgement time. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to ricep5
Companies are quick to take legal action against any policy that they don't agree with. They didn't take such actions here.
--
{Insert Something Witty Here} |
|
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | reply to ricep5
said by ricep5:The NSA was functioning on an interpretation of law that was unclear on roles of authority (Executive or Legislative). Now that the laws & their interpretation have been reviewed by the courts and since updated, I don't think it's right to go back and prosecute those who merely attempted to comply based on the earlier interpretation, flawed or otherwise. It's isn't up to Verizon, AT&T or their ilk to filter which law enforcement requests they can and cannot respond to. I hate seeing so much dough going to someone's coffers for anything legislative, but to hold the carriers accountable for a flawed legal process is broken too. It was clearly a legal violation. FISA was in place and was working. The issue here is that Mr. Bush and cronies were spying well BEFORE the attacks on 9/11. It should be noted that his illegal spying, which he says is to protect us, did NOTHING to protect us from 9/11. I'm struck that the administration and AT&T say they did nothing wrong, yet they are both lobbying for immunity. Why? Like the republicans say, "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
If trivial little things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights can't be protected, then screw it, let's just throw it all away and start over with a new Constitution. Democracy's biggest threat is the encroachment of fascism, where corporate power forms the rule of law. This must be rejected, and democracy must be protected. |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to morbo
A lot of att people are x-military or govt service, they are very patriotic, of course they are going to obey the govt.
The people who ordered illegal survielliance should be charged, not the conduit they used to get the information. |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | I keep forgetting that being patriotic means blindly following orders...especially if from our FedGov...
KM |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to gaforces
both should be charged. the spying only happened because (1) someone ordered it, and (2) telcos agreed to look the other way and facilitate it. |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to gaforces
The people at AT&T and Verizon knew what they were doing violated the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. Any law enforcement person who has made such a request knows that the Telcos know and follow the letter and spirit of the laws and constitution. We need to find out what made this situation different. Giving them immunity will not let that happen. Who knows, a court may find that what they did was OK. But, lets let the courts do their job. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to gaforces
I think it's fair for the government to ASK for this information. They did not demand it. In fact I think the government did the right thing by ASKING. But the telecoms had a real choice to keep the info private, or not. They made a choice that was contrary to their obligations to their customers. If some of their customers are upset about the privacy violation, they should be allowed to hold the telecoms to their obligations |
|
|
|
gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:I keep forgetting that being patriotic means blindly following orders...especially if from our FedGov... KM It's not just that, they want to keep thier jobs, and not end up in a jail because they broke thier signed oaths to the govt. |
|
gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to OwlSaver
said by OwlSaver:The people at AT&T and Verizon knew what they were doing violated the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. Any law enforcement person who has made such a request knows that the Telcos know and follow the letter and spirit of the laws and constitution. We need to find out what made this situation different. Giving them immunity will not let that happen. Who knows, a court may find that what they did was OK. But, lets let the courts do their job. I have to agree with you, but the difference is that its not local law enforcement in this matter, its the federal government.
The telecom employees have to sign non disclosure agreements, they couldnt even tell thier bosses if the NSA asked them for info.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon |
|
 beldinScript Monkey number 50Premium
join:2006-06-06
Union, SC
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to ackman
said by ackman:If trivial little things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights can't be protected, then screw it, let's just throw it all away and start over with a new Constitution. Democracy's biggest threat is the encroachment of fascism, where corporate power forms the rule of law. This must be rejected, and democracy must be protected. To which Democracy are you referring? The last time I looked, the United States of America was a Republic. When was the Constitution changed and why wasn't I notified?
Hmmmm....
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Democracy for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with some liberty and little justice for all."
It just doesn't sound right for some reason but I guess it's fairly accurate. I'll have to think about it.
--
DSL Extreme 6.0 |
|
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | said by beldin:said by ackman:If trivial little things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights can't be protected, then screw it, let's just throw it all away and start over with a new Constitution. Democracy's biggest threat is the encroachment of fascism, where corporate power forms the rule of law. This must be rejected, and democracy must be protected. To which Democracy are you referring? The last time I looked, the United States of America was a Republic. When was the Constitution changed and why wasn't I notified? Hmmmm.... "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Democracy for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with some liberty and little justice for all." It just doesn't sound right for some reason but I guess it's fairly accurate. I'll have to think about it. It's a fair point to contest. I think a subtle difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic, the representatives are chosen by a select group of voters, but in a democracy the representatives are chosen by the people. In a sense, the electoral colleage could be the tipping balance that defines the US as a republic. But in theory, it's the people's vote that decides the electoral votes. Definitely a muddy water though. |
|
