said by satellite68 :

BTW-basing your entire argument on the premise that so far nothing has happened is purely a fallacy. A new President and/or new Congress may disagree totally with what is passed as law now.

said by amigo_boy :

And, likewise, the DoJ didn't find it reasonable to file criminal charges.

said by amigo_boy :

Civil court isn't where you prosecute broken laws and criminal behavior. It's where groups with political agendas bleed someone dry with class action lawsuits just because they can't accomplish their goal through criminal and impeachment courts.

Don't you find it odd that DSL Reports couches its article as "if you support things like due process..." when a rational person would say that using civil court to accomplish what can't be accomplished through criminal/impeachment court is essentially circumventing due process?

said by Surfinusa :

Thanks for the reassurance.

EDIT: No really I am fine now .. I am fine (paranoya) J/k

said by Skippy25 :

I would agree somewhat but with a different angle.

You punish a corporation by making it pay money. You can't put the corporation in jail to serve time. However, you can put the executives that gave the order to follow this criminal behavior in jail.

Therefore I say you punish the corporation by fining them (and allowing them pay those they violated through court actions) and then you procecute in criminal court the individuals responsible for making an illegal request happen.

Without this immunity bill I am sure that is exactly what will happen. With it, none of it will.

said by satellite68 :

What's the sound of one hand clapping?

Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype.

said by supergirl :

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.

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.

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

said by amigo_boy :

Question: Why didn't Lincoln's or Roosevelt's violation of existing law require the same standard?

said by ross :

Well, yes, it does!

said by amigo_boy :

Thanks for posting that. It's nice to see some *balance* on DSL Reports.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

At which point they can hold Senate hearings and indict corporate officers, etc. The proposed immunity doesn't prevent that from happening does it?...

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

said by amigo_boy :

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

said by nasadude :

maybe all caps will help: