If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19994605 en Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:35:02 EDT Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:35:02 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010394 patcat88 :
said by satellite68 See Profile :

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.
A new Congress or a new President can mean 2 things. A Democrat, or a Republican. Party platforms change very slowly, and the party power structures cross election cycles. Nothing will change unless the Green Party wins 50%.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010394 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:52:49 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010386 patcat88 :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

And, likewise, the DoJ didn't find it reasonable to file criminal charges.
Bush ordered the Attorney General not to pursue the case. Nuff said.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010386 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:50:05 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010382 patcat88 :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by woody7 See Profile :

why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass.
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?
Why should the DOJ sue the Govt? The DOJ IS THE GOVT. The president appoints the Attorney General, and can fire him at will. All it takes is 1 phone call, and the govt will never ever ever again consider suing that person/entity/itself (US Govt). Criminal case just flew out the window.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010382 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:48:25 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20009450 patcat88 : Im sure this mass wiretapping has been done ever since it became technologically feasiable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20009450 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:45:39 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20000361 supergirl :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

:p Thanks for the reassurance.

EDIT: No really I am fine now .. I am fine :huh: (paranoya) J/k
Glad to be on help! :o
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20000361 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:27:50 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999216 Surfinusa :
said by Skippy25 See Profile :

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.
Really fines just hurt the companies profits and doesn't help the problem the problem is the people making the decision.

But really if you were asked by the Government do us this favor,most likely an agreement was worked out (scratch my back and well you know?

Going after the individuals seems more logical as you stated.

Even if you fined the Telcos Billions it would only hurt the company and these share holders and smaller stock holders also the users of the services provided will suffer because of trying to recoup the losses because of bad decisions made by these Individuals who made the decision to go along with the spying without proper documentation.

But I am sure all could be justified by the company and the government.

Whether it washes with the public is another story.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999216 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:41:08 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999058 Surfinusa :
said by satellite68 See Profile :

What's the sound of one hand clapping?

Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype.
LOL Dude, that's wacked.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999058 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:46:25 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999032 Surfinusa :
said by supergirl See Profile :

said by Surfinusa See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

... 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. :huh:
:p Thanks for the reassurance.

EDIT: No really I am fine now .. I am fine :huh: (paranoya) J/k]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999032 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:40:07 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998987 supergirl :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

... 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. :huh:

--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998987 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:26:58 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998275 ross :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

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.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998275 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:08:55 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998248 Thaler :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by nasadude See Profile :

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. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998248 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:03:18 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998140 JakCrow : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998140 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:44:46 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997749 amigo_boy :
said by ross See Profile :

said by amigo_boy See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997749 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:43:25 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997723 ross :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

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

Mark
What? WTF would you know about balance?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997723 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:38:50 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997568 ross :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997568 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:13:23 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997052 amigo_boy :
said by ross See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997052 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:46:47 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996981 ross :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by cdru See Profile :

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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996981 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:31:33 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996888 nasadude : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996888 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:12:39 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996800 MyDogHsFleas :
said by nasadude See Profile :

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". ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996800 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:54:55 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996785 MysticGogeta : The way of saying F U to citizens rights also.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996785 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:53:04 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996729 TKJunkMail :
said by ross See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996729 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:43:42 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996709 amigo_boy :
said by nasadude See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996709 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:41:08 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996691 ross :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996691 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:38:42 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996689 nasadude : if you think that makes sense, you are mistaken.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996689 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:38:30 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996665 nasadude : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996665 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:36:02 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996534 jc100 : 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? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996534 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:15:48 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996428 Karl Bode :
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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996428 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:59:16 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996405 Thaler :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996405 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:54:55 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996384 amigo_boy :
said by satellite68 See Profile :

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

I mean, can we apply your logic in reverse by saying that, if a future President and/or Congress *doesn't* take action, that the EFF will have to repay the telcos for the cost of defending themselves in civil court?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996384 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:52:01 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996368 amigo_boy :
said by nasadude See Profile :

look, this is really really simple:

1.FISA was the law at the time these activities took place (that's why this is being called retroactive immunity)

2. FISA requires the govt to present a valid and legal court order or certification suppporting their request

3. if the conditions of 2 are not met, the telecoms ARE BREAKING THE LAW by providing info to the govt
But, it's equally simple:

1. Property laws or the Neutrality Act were the law at the time of Lincoln's and Roosevelt's activities.

2. Those laws didn't even provide for government to make a request (to free slaves or in-kind exchanges of military goods). I.e., nothing but the letter of the law applied.

3. When the conditions of those 2 were not met, we didn't debate granting immunity to those who carried out the President's directives. The problem laid with the Presidents, who (like Bush) worked to amend the law to better accommodate their actions.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996368 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:49:49 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996359 jester121 : huh?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996359 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:48:40 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996314 amigo_boy :
said by cdru See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996314 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:43:17 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996280 Karl Bode : Don't you understand? According to Mark, because you couldn't get past the stonewalling of the nation's intelligence operations to get to the truth, correct the vast systemic corruption inherent in our system long enough to hold a major corporation accountable, and impeach the president, it means nobody did anything wrong....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996280 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:38:25 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996273 cdru :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996273 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:37:31 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996195 jc100 : Good old Amigo is at it again. So where is that information I requested Mr self styled freedom fighter. You are championing for his cause but don't want to live up to what it stands for? Can someone give me an H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. Whats that spell, well hell he's heard it 100 times over. Anyhow Amigo, if Whistle Blowers aren't given protection anymore due to this administration then ATT and Verizon shouldn't be either. After all, they spilled the secrets of Americans as would someone who tells on their company for wrong doing. As with that point, here's the 42nd time.

Name
Address
Telephone Number
Credit Report
List of all sites visited
List of all files downloaded
Social Security Number
Password to Financial Accounts
Password To your computer files

We're waiting. You want to fight for this issue, now put out already. I'm not letting it go until we see you put your MOUTH WHERE YOUR RHETORIC STANDS.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996195 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:26:52 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996182 MysticGogeta : I do not support teleco immunity how dare they wiretap lines with out warrants. Do we live in a 3rd world country with no rights? You might as well have a stranger in your house next to you listening when you make phone calls.
Theres a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that you should hear "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996182 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:25:36 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996016 MyDogHsFleas :
said by nasadude See Profile :

look, this is really really simple:
actually that's a myth. You and others stampede to this conclusion that laws were broken, and you have convinced yourselves that the truth of this is so obvious that it could only be corruption, lobbyist payoffs, and arrogant Constitution-trampling leadership that caused it to happen.

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on this:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran···troversy

Holy cripes! I don't have time to get through all that complexity. This is a difficult, winding road through a mass of legalities. And there are differing opinions.

Now, do you still think it's "really really simple" ??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996016 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:04:58 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995954 satellite68 :
quote:
And yet the President wasn't impeached. Not even *censured*. Nor were officers of AT&T weren't indicted on criminal charges. And, the law was expanded, justifying the premise that the President acted judiciously


For now, maybe. Time will tell if that "truth" you defend holds up over the course of history.

I'm wagering it won't.

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995954 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:57:46 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995942 nasadude : look, this is really really simple:

1.FISA was the law at the time these activities took place (that's why this is being called retroactive immunity)

2. FISA requires the govt to present a valid and legal court order or certification suppporting their request

3. if the conditions of 2 are not met, the telecoms ARE BREAKING THE LAW by providing info to the govt

all I've heard the govt or telecoms say it that the govt assured them it was a legal request - nobody has ever stated the govt provided a lawful court order or certification, most likely because they never did.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995942 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:55:57 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995679 Karl Bode : See: I still think you're painfully incorrect.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995679 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:14:33 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995658 amigo_boy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

I'm sure that has nothing to do with corruption and systemic dysfunction.
See »Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995658 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:11:14 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995654 PhoenixDown : Mark, this is the last resort after every time to address the issue with the government resulted in a "sorry its national security, go scratch" response.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995654 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:10:58 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995589 Surfinusa :
said by JakCrow See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995589 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:59:12 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995576 SilverSurfer :
said by nasadude See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :


...

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995576 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:57:50 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995449 JakCrow :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by Surfinusa See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995449 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:33:47 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995399 Karl Bode :
quote:
And yet the President wasn't impeached. Not even *censured*. Nor were officers of AT&T weren't indicted on criminal charges. And, the law was expanded, justifying the premise that the President acted judiciously.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with corruption and systemic dysfunction.
quote:
You simply can't accept that President Bush has been similarly vindicated.
Vindicated by a broken justice system and partisan zealots? Oh yeah! Huge win for the people!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995399 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:27:11 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995316 amigo_boy :
said by morbo See Profile :

- AT&T knowingly and willingly broke the law
And yet the President wasn't impeached. Not even *censured*. Nor were officers of AT&T weren't indicted on criminal charges. And, the law was expanded, justifying the premise that the President acted judiciously.

said by morbo See Profile :

- Civil court is part of the legal system, despite your protests and attempt to discredit it
Why do district attorneys charge drug dealers in criminal court instead of the more obvious (to self-styled freedom fighters) civil court?

said by morbo See Profile :

- Comparing Bush's actions to those of Lincoln and Roosevelt is both impossible and insulting.
This is an example of how self-styled freedom fighters reap the benefits of past "expediencies" while demanding a level of perfect that never existed (and, quite likely, we're lucky didn't).

There were plenty of people who opposed Lincoln's and Roosevelt's "expediency." It only looks to you that such a position would be absurd because so much time has elapsed, and we've accepted they were right. You simply can't accept that President Bush has been similarly vindicated.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995316 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:11:50 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995236 morbo : - AT&T knowingly and willingly broke the law
- Civil court is part of the legal system, despite your protests and attempt to discredit it
- Comparing Bush's actions to those of Lincoln and Roosevelt is both impossible and insulting. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995236 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:56:04 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995208 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995208 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:52:45 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995182 amigo_boy :
said by morbo See Profile :

the "agenda" is the rule of law.
The law has been followed. The issues debated by the public and on the floor of government. Surveillance laws modified to better accommodate the President's claimed needs. The "pragmatic" actions that occurred prior to this were found not to rise to the level of impeachment. And, likewise, the DoJ didn't find it reasonable to file criminal charges.

It seems to me like the laws are working, but opponents of immunity don't like it. Therefore they want to use *civil* court to accomplish what they can't through the process this far. That's a good reason for immunity! They're perverting the system in the same way they claim the President and telcos did.

And, remember, this is hardly without precedent. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt "broke the laws" when they considered it necessary for the public interest. Their actions were later made legal by amending the laws. Those who carried out those Presidents' will weren't sued in civil court just because those who opposed those Presidents couldn't deal with the fact that the system worked in a way they wished it hadn't.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995182 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:49:27 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995175 Skippy25 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995175 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:47:14 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995072 morbo : the "agenda" is the rule of law.

and again, try to refocus on the issue and not continue with a sad attempt to dilute the illegality or process of obtaining justice. no one except TKJunkmail is buying it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995072 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:29:17 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995042 firephoto :
said by woody7 See Profile :

So if he vetoes the bill isn't he dooming us to the terrorist? ;)
;) ;)
God and Country!

TelCos or Die!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995042 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:24:57 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995012 firephoto :
said by morbo See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995012 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:20:42 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994983 woody7 : Thats your a$$umption. How do you know that they have caught anyone with their cloak of secrecy,just blindly believe them? shouldn't the government follow the law when they make such a "request", Isn't that what "FISA" was for, hell, they could even file after the fact, that alone speaks volumes? Just because the government "requests" something, doesn't mean you have to blindly follow...and makes it legal. Peace
--
BlooMe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994983 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:16:44 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994937 amigo_boy :
said by woody7 See Profile :

why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass.
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?

That's the problem I have with all this. I'd be perfectly happy if telco customers and investors (with a contractual relationship) sued telcos if they could prove damages. But, this is just a bunch of unrelated parties (with an agenda) using customers and investors to pursue "broken laws" instead of actual damages. To me, that's as much of an abuse of the system as the President and telcos are accused of.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994937 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:09:55 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994902 odreian615 : Don't forget they have up to 72 hours AFTER they start a wiretap to get a warrant]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994902 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:04:42 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994901 morbo :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994901 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:04:38 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994892 amigo_boy :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

... 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994892 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:03:13 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994831 nasadude :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

...

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994831 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:54:22 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994757 jimbo2150 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994757 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:42:45 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994738 Surfinusa :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by Surfinusa See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994738 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:40:35 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994727 woody7 : said by TK Junk Mail

"I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity.

Not to beat a dead horse, but why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. I don't want to hear it will cost us money in the end, because how can you attach a cost protecting our right$ I Bushes rhetoric seems to suggest that the only way he can protect us is by violating our rights and then giving immunity to those that did. So if he vetoes the bill isn't he dooming us to the terrorist? ;)
;) ;)
--
BlooMe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994727 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:38:53 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994710 TKJunkMail :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994710 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:36:50 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994701 satellite68 : What's the sound of one hand clapping?

Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994701 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:35:50 EDT Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994679 Surfinusa :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

... 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. :huh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994679 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:29:30 EDT If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994605 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.

P.S. The House leadership decides on who gets to be the House members of the conference committee. So, depending on their views on immunity, they can put House members on the committee that support or don't support immunity.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994605 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:21:18 EDT