JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
said by TKJunkMail  :said by firephoto :Oh look, the dslr community is a similar makeup to the people in the USA. Not even close. The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by JakCrow :The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. IMO polls don't mean a great deal. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed all guns should be banned. Didn't matter if it was practical or Constitutional.
I wonder if the majority of Americans have a clue what this immunity is about? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
It seems to me like the proposed immunity is just to short-circuit the process under which already codified immunities would be upheld, challenged in courts of appeals, etc., for years.
If the public understood this, I suspect they could care less. It doesn't sound the same in that context compared to "immunity" (as if they don't already have it).
I think the only thing this is about is avoiding the telcos divulging the details of what they were told in order to form "good faith belief" of "danger". And, to avoid the years of litigation as the lawsuits are sent to appeals, etc.
Mark |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by Karl Bode : quote:
.
Oh man! Bitter much? I guess my attempts to point out where you are reporting biased stories are falling on deaf ears. I guess I'll not bother. Looks like this site is not a place to go for actual news. Well, it's still great for technical stuff... In all actuality BBR site allows people of all kinds to make a noise unlike news reports were you listen and others do the talking.
BBR is a very tolerant site.
The fact BBR has put up with my thoughts show it.
And no not everyone agrees with each other but over all you can respond and defend whom ever you want and talk about what ever you want.
BBR gives users the ability to share there thoughts.
And there is proof because this is a heated topic no moderation has taken place. Yet those that are opposed to liability for actions taken and decisions made by the Bells in favor of the Government seem to have special terms for those who believe the Bells and Government should be held accountable for breaking laws in this case and the Government for not following there own set of laws they created.
Out of fairness let us say BBR is a fair site.
You don't have to agree with the news it reports but BBR doesn't make up news it recieves it from outside sources.
If you think the sources are bias that's your opinion.
Its like a NOSE everyone has one.
You don't have to get up in everyone's face with your nose and point it out but you can exercise your right to.
If that makes any sense.
Being around here since 2001 I feel this is a nice sight like people you meet in person not everyone is nice but you get over it not everyone agrees with you but that's the fact of life.
No one is wrong no one is right when it comes to an opinion.
When it comes down to life and death decisions this is not the place to discuss it. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Actually I agree pretty much with your thoughts. Although I'm a little confused by the "life and death decisions" thing.
The forums here seem to be really quite reasonable. And not a lot of "banning" drama. And there's a huge amount of good technical content here.
I'd prefer the news stories to be a bit more objective and balanced. But it's not my site. It is what it is. I'll quit complaining about the news stories. I've said my piece. |
|
Jeremy in Denver
@comcast.net
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :It means the Constitutional system didn't find the matters in question to rise to the level of crime that self-styled freedom fighters insist it did. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you like? Which due process? Which checks and balances? See » Re: Benny said it allI don't think I'm seeing demons by simply pointing out how the system *worked*. It seems like those who insist it didn't work, and who ignore all the due process (and checks and balances) to this point, just because it wasn't in their favor, and who now run to *civil court* as the institution of choice are the ones who've gone over the edge. I'd go so far as saying that publishing editorials referring readers to biased activist organizations, to send representatives prepared statements goes one more step toward describing who's unbalanced.  Mark This entire post boils down to 'Sit down, shut up, and let me have my way.'
Must be a new Right-wing Republican talking point, trying to vilify civil court. A tangent to the idea that courts are filled with 'left wing activist librul judges'?
Hmm.
You are entitled to your belief that the system worked. You and CEO Stephenson of AT&T and Seidenberg of Verison all think it worked. I personally don't think it worked -- AT&T violated _my_ personal freedoms, possibly before 9/11 even happened. I want to get to the bottom of it, and I'd love to see AT&T's upper management fry for it, but first, information has to be wrested from their clutches.
You're advocating not letting that info be drug into the light. I say p*** off. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Jeremy in Denver :
This entire post boils down to 'Sit down, shut up, and let me have my way.' Not at all. I'm happy people are animated rather than watching DVDs and playing video games ("bread and circus", search wikipedia to see what I mean). But, the constant theme (whine, IMO) among self-styled freedom fighters is that the system doesn't deserve respect, and thus justifies perversions such as using civil court to accomplish what they can't through the natural channels the system provides for. They can't accept that they lost. It *has* to be the perversion of the system. Therefore, any perverted response is acceptable to them.
On the one hand, that's ok. Be up front about it. Let everyone know that this isn't just about immunity, it's about contempt for the system entirely. And, stop quoting Founders and speaking like *you're* the ones who care about the health of the system, and everyone else is an enemy to the system.
said by Jeremy in Denver :
You're advocating not letting that info be drug into the light. That's actually a very accurate statement. Despite the headlines and ravings, it's not about "immunity." The law provides for immunity with *very* simple conditions: 1) The AG certifies no warrant is necessary. 2) The telco had a "good faith belief" of "danger" (a lower threshold than the pre-96 "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger").
The proposed immunity is just to be immune from proving that immunity applies. It's to avoid the telcos showing Gonzalez's certification. Or, what classified information was revealed to them to form the basis of "reasonable belief."
That sounds a lot different than "immunity from breaking the law."
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa : You don't have to agree with the news it reports but BBR doesn't make up news it recieves it from outside sources. If you think the sources are bias that's your opinion. I don't think the sources are biased. I do think the introductions are biased, and therefore perhaps the source selection is biased.
I just think the way the introductions are so obviously biased (like a link to EFF to send a pre-concluded comment to your representatives) takes away from DSLR/BBR. It calls into question the site's integrity to providing news rather than perhaps a personal viewpoint.
Otherwise I like DSLR/BBR. The debates are friendly. People don't seem to take things personally even when comments are intended to be taken so. Nobody seems to harbor grudges (except, perhaps JC  ).
Mark |
|
PCDEC
join:2004-10-12
Allentown, PA | reply to TKJunkMail
It won't let me vote in the poll...
But I support our rights as citizens and do not think immunity should be offered. They broke the law and violated our privacy rights so they should be held accountable. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by JakCrow :The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. IMO polls don't mean a great deal. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed all guns should be banned. Didn't matter if it was practical or Constitutional. Oh yes. Those pesky polls that don't support your opinion. They don't mean anything.
quote:
I wonder if the majority of Americans have a clue what this immunity is about? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
It seems to me like the proposed immunity is just to short-circuit the process under which already codified immunities would be upheld, challenged in courts of appeals, etc., for years.
If the public understood this, I suspect they could care less. It doesn't sound the same in that context compared to "immunity" (as if they don't already have it).
Section 408 of the "Protect America Act" under the heading "Liability Defense":
Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.
Why are you trying obfuscate a fact that is pretty clearly spelled out?
quote:
I think the only thing this is about is avoiding the telcos divulging the details of what they were told in order to form "good faith belief" of "danger". And, to avoid the years of litigation as the lawsuits are sent to appeals, etc.
Sorry. Not good enough for what they've done, which was eagerly allow the government to wiretapp U.S. phone lines without the required, and easily obtained, FISA warrants. That is, once again, illegal. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
Are you kidding?
Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Bush EASILY could have gotten a warrant and done it legally.
You know what you are talking about? ... a dictator. President Bush just got done invading Iraq and removing one.
I'm sorry, but it's clear you have no idea about our laws in this country or what the constitution means. 
Rule #1 - no one is above the law. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :Oh yes. Those pesky polls that don't support your opinion. They don't mean anything. It's not just issues I disagree with. Polls make me uncomfortable even when I agree. You could take a poll "should the government do something to stop hurricanes?" and a majority would say "yes." In the early 90s polls were used to fuel the anti-gun craze. "A majority believe gun-related crime is on the rise" (when it had been falling for 5 years).
said by JakCrow :Section 408 of the "Protect America Act" under the heading "Liability Defense": .. Why are you trying obfuscate a fact that is pretty clearly spelled out? But, what do you do with 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c)? It's obvious those laws already granted immunity for *years*, with such weak conditions that it's unimaginable the telcos couldn't qualify. The latter was even made easier to obtain in 2006 (not just "reasonable belief" of "imminent" danger, but "good faith belief" (however unreasonable) of danager (regardless of how imminent).
So, you have to ask what the proposed immunity deal accomplishes. You're arguing that without it the telcos would have no immunity. It's absurd to believe the above two laws wouldn't apply. Therefore, what's the other alternative? To prevent the telcos from disclosing that Gonzalez certified a warrant wasn't necessary? Or, disclosing what the government told the telcos to give them "a reasonable belief" of "danger?"
Other opponents of this deal have said they believe this is the intended goal. There may be reasons to oppose it. But, it's incorrect to call it "immunity" as if immunity isn't codified in our law with such low hurdles that it can apply anytime the government wants.
IMO self-styled freedom fighters don't want to talk about it in those terms. It's so much more powerful to whip the masses into a frenzy by depicting it as immunity/no immunity. "Immunity? How dare them let people off for what was illegal" (while saying nothing about how the law already provided for immunity).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Are you kidding? Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Then impeach the President. That's the normal course of action if you feel he abused his power. Not those who followed the President in good faith. Even the laws that have existed at the time support that. See »Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
Mark |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| The republicans in congress are more interested in covering for the team than to actual stand for the rule of law.
And the telcos didn't follow the president in "good faith". They new the law specifically requires FISA warrants. Bush's wink and smile are not good enough. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
You're too smug for your own good... and it will ultimately hurt not only you, but others that think the same way you do.
Were you around for the Ford Presidency? .. you know why the man pardoned Nixon, right?
If you know the answer to that question, then you will know why Bush has not been impeached at this time.
It's no secret that we have a retard in charge of this country (unless one's head is up his rear) but there are actually good reasons why he hasn't been impeached at this time.
Even many of the Bush followers regretted voting for him in the second term - that was clear just a very short time after his re-election.
Right now, for the good of the country, the man stays. The people spoke in the 2006 election that it was time to throttle the government - and did. |
|
