TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to Surfinusa
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
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. 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 |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| said by TKJunkMail :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. 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. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :... 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. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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. |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | reply to nasadude
Don't forget they have up to 72 hours AFTER they start a wiretap to get a warrant |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
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 |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :said by TKJunkMail :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. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
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. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :said by TKJunkMail :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. 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. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by TKJunkMail :
...
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. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :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. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | 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 |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to amigo_boy
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... |
|
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. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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. |
|
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 |
|
