Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to amigo_boy
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... |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to jester121
This goes back to an earlier discussion where Amigo has all but supported Telecom Immunity but doesn't wish to be subjected to the same requirements this law would hold the rest of us to. Simply put, he doesn't mind the government prying into our every lives and has been a strong advocate for overlooking their bad behavior. Therefore, I have told him over and over, if sharing your data with complete strangers is no big deal, please post your information for all to see. After all, once the government gets it, who knows what they do with it, who sees it (third parties etc), or who they share it with. Hence, posting it here would be no different. Once the government has all your personal information, you can't control what is done with it, the same as would happen by posting it here. So back to my question to Amigo, what are you waiting for already? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
maybe all caps will help:
DURING THE TIME FRAME BEING CONSIDERED, FISA WAS THE SOLE MEANS FOR CONTROLLING GOVT SURVEILLANCE.
FISA HAS A VERY BRIGHT AND PRECISE REQUIREMENT THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE A COMPANY CAN TURN OVER INFORMATION ON U.S. CITIZENS: THE GOVT MUST PRESENT TO THE COMPANY A LEGAL COURT ORDER OR CERTIFICATION THAT THE SURVEILLANCE IS LAWFUL
IF SAID COMPANY DID NOT RECEIVE SUCH COURT ORDER OR CERTIFICATION, IT WAS THEIR PATRIOTIC AND LEGAL DUTY TO REFUSE THE GOVTS REQUEST; IF THEY PROVIDED THE INFORMATION ANYWAY, THEY BROKE THE LAW! - FOR GAWD'S SAKE, ATT HELPED WRITE THE FISA LAW TO ENSURE THE TELECOMS DUTIES WERE CRYSTAL CLEAR
it really, truly is that simple. If the law AT THE TIME had been followed, there would be no court cases. as I said above, it's called RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY because what they did was ILLEGAL AT THE TIME and both Bush and the telcos are now seeking a "get out OF jail" card from our corrupt and spineless congress.
I'm not even going to get into what the law is now (other than perverted and fascist), BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS NOW, but the law as it existed in 2001. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to amigo_boy
if you think that makes sense, you are mistaken. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to TKJunkMail
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. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude : If the law AT THE TIME had been followed, Question: Why didn't Lincoln's or Roosevelt's violation of existing law require the same standard?
Mark |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to ross
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: | The way of saying F U to citizens rights also. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :maybe all caps will help: No they don't. It's still rude.
Did you read the WikiPedia article at the link I gave? I don't understand how you could read that and still say it's "really simple". It's just not.
I'm sorry to bust up your preconceived notion.
If you can't read that article, then recant your all-caps rant (which said nothing your previous post didn't), then I'm sorry, but I have nothing else to add. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and say "you can't show someone something if they refuse to look". |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | that wiki article is on the entire controversy, including more recent potentially illegal activities, not on the original FISA law. In addition, there was no AUMF when the illegal wiretapping was started.
go read the wiki on FISA - it is much shorter and much less confusing and complex than the article you point to. From that, we learn that 2 out of 3 courts have addressed the constitutional issue and found it to be constitutional.
I would be happy to have a knock down, drag out fight in the courts about whether FISA is constitutional, but that's not what the telcos and Bush want - they want immunity regardless of whether the law is the law or not. I suspect that's because they feel pretty strongly the constitutionality of the FISA law would be upheld and they would be up the creek without a paddle.
You said "Holy cripes! I don't have time to get through all that complexity." Well, I do and I concede the whole surveillance controversy as it exists now is a big mess, but the status of the FISA law in 2001 was and still is quite clear. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
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
| 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
| reply to amigo_boy
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?... Well, yes, it does! THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!
Every time I read your twisted, illogical ideological drivel in these forums, I am surprised at your total lack of comprehension. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
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? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to ross
said by ross :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?... Well, yes, it does! Everything I've read has said it's just immunity from civil suits. Do you have a reference that it is also immunity from criminal suits?
Mark |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
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. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
2 edits | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by nasadude : If the law AT THE TIME had been followed, Question: Why didn't Lincoln's or Roosevelt's violation of existing law require the same standard? Because clearly, two wrongs make a right.  |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to amigo_boy
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.) |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to Surfinusa
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 | 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 |
|
