EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Too bad
If there is really a lawsuit that the telcos lost, the only thing that'll happen is that you'll get a new fee on your bill to pay off the millions that will go straight to a few class-action lawyers... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by EPS  :If there is really a lawsuit that the telcos lost, the only thing that'll happen is that you'll get a new fee on your bill to pay off the millions that will go straight to a few class-action lawyers... Yes, that is something those who are screaming for civil lawsuits always overlook. It won't cost the companies or investors a nickel. Higher prices will recoup any settlement costs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| So.....by reducing bad/illegal behavior to money,that makes it ok? I don't care if they get sued for billions, wrong is wrong. Am I to believe that the attorney general said it was ok that it is ok? Bottom line is that if they did nothing wrong, why do they need the immunity? (other than it will cost them money, and it will be passed on the subscribers). PS, I could care less about your retirement, and stock in whatever telecom, and how did this mess become a Democrat issue other than they should impeach all these morons, and yes I am a Republican....Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by woody7 :Am I to believe that the attorney general said it was ok that it is ok? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. Suing telcos isn't going to fix that.
So, yes, if suing telcos is just a way to get the pound of flesh which couldn't have been obtained through impeachment of the President, or criminal prosecution of the AG, then it makes perfect sense to consider how much it will eventually cost telco subscribers who will ultimately foot the bill. (Or, worse, taxpayers who will foot the bill through no-bid contracts to quietly reimburse telcos).
Mark |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| And just because the "ag" says so isn't the final answer.That is why they are being sued,and that is why Bush is pushing this. The AG over stepped his authority, and yes the telecoms should have fought this in the beginning. You can't spy on your own citizens.that is why there is fisa. And it is not a pound of flesh. They/the government acted improperly, if not downright illegally, what don't you get that? I don't necessarily want the telecoms to have to spend money unnecessarily,but I want to see how far reaching and if indeed it was actually legit.The plan that the democrats in congress put forth will prevent any "secrets" from getting out. And I see no reason why there isn't any impeachment proceedings going on for that matter. Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by woody7 :that is why there is fisa. FISA didn't repeal 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c). In fact, the latter was amended in 2006 (Patriot Act) to make it *less restrictive*.
said by woody7 : And it is not a pound of flesh. It frequently sounds like it is.
Mark |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| FISA didn't repeal 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c). In fact, the latter was amended in 2006 (Patriot Act) to make it *less restrictive*
That is a point I was trying to make. "some" people equate rights however trivial to $$. This current administration, and possibly earlier ones had/has all the tools that they need/needed to get the job done. Fisa, and as I have stated in an earlier post, will let you get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. ( and even that is probably not etched in stone). They chose not to do this for what ever reason (I am sure we know why), and the telecoms didn't push it. (that is their bad).fast forward to now, someone found out about the "domestic" spying (secret rooms,connections,etc, telecoms too easily complying) and wasn't thrilled. To my knowledge, only the "FBI" is charged to do the domestic surveillance that is Legal of course. The Constitution nowhere states that the Executive branch (Pres) gets any extraordinary powers in war time (congress needed to step up on that one, both houses), and he can shit on the Constitution. One of the reasons you can have a civil suit is to address issues such as this. This administration would have you believe that all lawyers that sue are blood sucking bottom feeders (that is for another discussion.Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by woody7 :Fisa, ... will let you get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. ... They chose not to do this for what ever reason ..., and the telecoms didn't push it. Why should the telcoms push it? There may be a reason to get rid of the exclusions to wiretaps. But, the exclusion exists. If the administration tells the telco that the exclusion is applicable in this case, and they certify it as required by law, why should the telcom be responsible for anything more?
Mark |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to woody7
It's stupid to go after the nebulous entities "at&t, Inc." or "Verizon Communications, Inc.". That doesn't help anyone- the people who made these supposedly illegal actions won't be punished. If these people were going after the telco EXECUTIVES, that would be a whole different story. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :So.....by reducing bad/illegal behavior to money,that makes it ok? I don't care if they get sued for billions, wrong is wrong. Am I to believe that the attorney general said it was ok that it is ok? Bottom line is that if they did nothing wrong, why do they need the immunity? You miss the point. It's the plaintiffs (the EFF, the ACLU, etc) who are reducing it to money. Civil lawsuits are EXACTLY about money, not about laws being broken. Someone says "I was harmed by you and therefore you owe me $X". Class action lawsuits expand this to "BigCorp did so-and-so and harmed a whole CLASS of people therefore they owe the affected class $X-with-a-whole-bunch-of-zeros (30% or so of which will make some lawyers very, very rich)."
If you really think it's about right and wrong and laws, you should be pushing for impeachment of some federal officials, not this candy-ass civil immunity. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to amigo_boy
why would anyone believe what this administration has to say? and as I have said before, if it was all LEGAL why do they need immunity for anything. Just answer that part with out obfuscating the question with passages from titles etc.
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by woody7 :why would anyone believe what this administration has to say? I guess that would require a different law not yet on the books. Until then, all we have are the laws that are on the books. They certified warrants weren't required. That's all a telco needs. It doesn't compel them to cooperate. But, they've done all they need to do.
said by woody7 :and as I have said before, if it was all LEGAL why do they need immunity for anything. As has been answered before, civil court is death by a thousand cuts. It can last for years as trial lawyers make a fortune. OTOH, telcos will not be immune from criminal prosecution. So, why not follow that path if it's so clear they did something wrong? ("because it's too haaaard." We've been down this path before.).
Mark |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :why would anyone believe what this administration has to say? and as I have said before, if it was all LEGAL why do they need immunity for anything. Just answer that part with out obfuscating the question with passages from titles etc. Because it would cost millions upon millions of dollars to defend themselves in court from the ACLU type scum even if what they did was legal. And all for trying to help protect our country.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| Ahhhh your true colors are showing. You have reduced hard won/fought for rights to simply money. Why are lawyers that defend the constitution scum? ( and this current admin is?) And stepping on our rights is protecting us how? I thought that was what separated us from the rest of the world. How do you know it was to protect our county? Do you have verifiable info? (other than we just haven't been attacked).Do you believe there is/was a connection between 911 and Iraq?
--
BlooMe |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by woody7 :Ahhhh your true colors are showing. You have reduced hard won/fought for rights to simply money. Why are lawyers that defend the constitution scum? So, in your bizarro world, lawyers who gin up class action civil suits, which are EXACTLY about money (the only outcome is how much money is going to be spent, or settled on), are the ones who are "fighting for our rights" and "defending the Constitution". And the ones pointing this out are the ones who "reduce it to simply money".
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
The only way I can figure out that someone's logic has gotten so twisted is that their hatred for the Bush Administration is so overwhelming that they can rationalize anything that is against it. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| So, in your bizarro world, lawyers who gin up class action civil suits, which are EXACTLY about money (the only outcome is how much money is going to be spent, or settled on), are the ones who are "fighting for our rights" and "defending the Constitution". And the ones pointing this out are the ones who "reduce it to simply money".
No civil suits are to correct a wrong. If you read some of my previous posts, I'm not overly kind to lawyers getting rich off this. but a majority of people that are against this suit is based on the monetary side, not on the "weather it was legal or not side", that was my point. Why is that a "bizaro" world? Why are we trying to convert peoples to democracy, and then $hitting on our rights at home. No one answers the question, they obfuscate it by making other claims/ charges about the world I live in. If you waited for the government to square this it won't happen. In my personal bizzaro world that I spent 2 years in VietNam defending these freedoms to see them taken away because some president is having a panty wad about the telecoms not getting immunity for something that was "supposedly" legal is beyond me. The reason why is that it probably wasn't legal.What the Democrats have proposed is that a judge will view the secret government paperwork and make a decision. I can live with that. If every thing turns out "kosher" than that should be the end of it. I don't have a problem with what they do outside this country, only what is done inside. Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by woody7 :In my personal bizzaro world that I spent 2 years in VietNam defending these freedoms to see them taken ... Peace Thanks for what you did, and peace to you too. |
|
