dsldude08
Premium,VIP
join:2008-01-03
La Crosse, WI | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Dem contributing trial lawyers & election politics holdup
You are part of the cause of all of this if that is your attitude. The reason for that is because you sit back and let them get away with these things and refuse to try to change the ways when you actually have the power to do so. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by dsldude08  :You are part of the cause of all of this if that is your attitude. The reason for that is because you sit back and let them get away with these things and refuse to try to change the ways when you actually have the power to do so. I think you miss the point. I am on the side of those who rule - not on the side of the "great unwashed" masses.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| everyone should note that you Mr. America are in favor of corporations violating the Constitution, breaking the law. they broke the law and should be punished, period. what don't you understand about this? they broke the law and it is a known fact... the telecoms were handing this information over before 9 11 and it did nothing to stop 9 11. they were spying on ordinary citizens who differed in their politics. they broke the law. |
|
lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
No we didn't miss the point. We get it. You think it is perfectly legal for someone to go into someone else's house, steal their wallet and get away with it... Good point you make there. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | And what did AT&T steal from you by tapping foreign phone calls traversing the US or where 1 end terminates in a foreign country?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
·Optimum Online
1 edit | Now you're the one missing the point. It's illegal for someone to come into someone else's house and steal. Just like it's illegal for the cops to come into your house WITHOUT a WARRANT. That's why we have laws in this country. Nowhere in the law does it say that AT&T is immune from it. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:  
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail And what did AT&T steal from you by tapping foreign phone calls traversing the US or where 1 end terminates in a foreign country?
And according to the RIAA, the illegal interception of a digital transmission would be piracy. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And what did AT&T steal from you by tapping foreign phone calls traversing the US or where 1 end terminates in a foreign country? In the physical world (and in the virtual world, since around 1986) breaking and entering is illegal on its face. So is a common carrier or other electronic service disclosing your private communications without a warrant.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | reply to TKJunkMail
Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but... |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I think you miss the point. I am on the side of those who rule - not on the side of the "great unwashed" masses. don't tell me you're .. gasp.. elitist! |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to rit56
said by rit56 : they broke the law and should be punished, If they broke the law, charge them criminally. Civil court isn't where criminal prosecutions occur. Most people opposed to wiretapping usually admit that they don't want to do the work involved with prosecuting law breakers (impeachment of the President, congressional hearings, criminal prosecutions, etc.). What they're really saying is that they're ok with taking the same shortcuts they accuse the government of taking.
And, for what it's worth, the laws cover the telcos' actions. 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) does the same thing if a telco has reasonable belief of imminent danger. This was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent). This tends to show the legislative branch felt the laws should be relaxed -- not strengthened.
Mark |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
They tapped calls emanating from this country without a warrant. This has never been about what you have stated, and that is illegal.What part of that don't you understand? They had a chance to go to fisa court even after, and they chose not too. I could, and most people would agree that what goes on outside this country is ok. The telcos are spinless and acquiesced, and that is their mistake. While they (both parties) are posturing, everything is going to hell in a hand basket.Gas,food, rice, etc.etc. I'm so afraid that without this immunity, that I am afraid to leave the house. Not.
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by woody7 :They tapped calls emanating from this country without a warrant. They had a chance to go to fisa court even after, ... Aren't you mixing your arguments? FISA covers foreign intelligence gathering (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Why would they go to FISA for wiretapping that you acknowledge didn't involve foreign communications?
USC 2511(2)(f) separates itself from foriegn intelligence. It's 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) that grants immunity if the Attorney General certifies a warrant is not required. We know it was certified from Comey's testimony (»thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/).
Mark |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to amigo_boy
The current administration is unwilling to pursue criminal charges, beyond the obvious reasons such prosecution would likely implicate many of the politicians currently in charge.
Given the discord and contempt with which most Americans hold the president and this administration lets allows the guard to change then discuss the bill rationally. Once the deck isn't stacked with the same criminals that asked the companies to violate the law we'll have a much fairer verdict on whether the telecom companies should be charged for violations of the privacy policies they themselves prepared and agreed to abide by.
But those criminal charges alone don't negate the civil penalties for the actions. No civil immunity should be granted to any company, especially one that willingly broke the law and their own policies.
Hopefully in 8 short months real criminal charges will be filed against everyone that was involved including those in the administration who were involved, hopefully right to the top of the current administration. Willful disregard of the law should be punished severely. I'd personally like to see the soon to be former president charged, convicted and jailed for his egregious breaking of laws, authorization of subordinates (who don't deserve protection because they were ordered to do it) to break the law and his other illegal behavior while president. Just because current politics protect him, shouldn't give him immunity for his actions. We apparently need a precedent that sitting presidents are accountable for their actions after leaving office as the founders intended. |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT | reply to TKJunkMail
They tapped ALL phone calls. Domestic and foreign. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to TKJunkMail
I appreciate TK actually being upfront about being elitist. I actually find that kinda funny; that's a term that Republicans love to push in attempts to bash the political rivals. Kinda sad how well it works - those damn welfare-loving Democrats are elitist while those corporate-profit-above-everything Republicans are more like us 'regular Joes'.
Hrumph.
I think it's pretty plain that those who support the fascist tactics of this administration are either:
1) living in deep fear
or
2) profiting from the government's actions and policies
or perhaps a combination of both.
I really don't see how anyone in their right mind who truly loves what this country stands for can support this destructive administration. Of course, that assumes that 'what this country stands for' is understood to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not selfishness, greed, and materialism.
KM |
|
Telecom Pro
@rr.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :They tapped calls emanating from this country without a warrant. This has never been about what you have stated, and that is illegal.What part of that don't you understand? They had a chance to go to fisa court even after, and they chose not too. I could, and most people would agree that what goes on outside this country is ok. The telcos are spinless and acquiesced, and that is their mistake. While they (both parties) are posturing, everything is going to hell in a hand basket.Gas,food, rice, etc.etc. I'm so afraid that without this immunity, that I am afraid to leave the house. Not. This is a bald-faced lie.
Klein testified that they fed CALL DATA to the government, not that they wiretapped anyone.
Call data (pin register) has never required a warrant. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to rahvin112
said by rahvin112 :Hopefully in 8 short months real criminal charges will be filed against everyone that was involved including those in the administration who were involved, hopefully right to the top of the current administration. I'm ok with that. I just haven't liked the idea of using civil suits as a proxy for criminal prosecution (which is what many opponents of wiretapping have openly admitted it to be). Eight months isn't long.
But, I doubt there will be criminal prosecutions because the law permits the wiretapping. See my previous posts in this topic. There may be a reason to charge the President or Attorney General for abusing these laws. But, it appears the telcos were within the law.
BTW: The immunity deal only protects against civil suits for activities between 9/11/2001 to early 1/17/2007. It won't interfere with your hoped-for criminal prosecutions. And, it could be repealed.
Mark |
|
Telecom Pro
@rr.com
| reply to rahvin112
said by rahvin112 :They tapped ALL phone calls. Domestic and foreign. And what evidence do you have to support this outrageous assertion? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Telecom Pro
said by Telecom Pro :
Klein testified that they fed CALL DATA to the government, not that they wiretapped anyone.
Call data (pin register) has never required a warrant.
Do you have a reference to where Klein testified to this? (BTW: I thought normal warrant requirements were necessary for a telco to release call records, from/to information?).
One thing that's interesting to me is that USC 2511(2)(a)(ii) makes it illegal for a telco employee to publicize the existence of wiretapping.
"No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter .... Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. "
Mark |
|
