EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Why blame the telcos Seriously- the ones people should be going after are the administration officials... I don't see why anyone is ranting about attacking corporate entities- if the administration officials weren't pressuring the telcos to give up data then there would be no problem.
But of course, it's easier to go after companies in civil court than to attack the real root of the problem... |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Sure, but most people don't care - sadly.
Even fewer care that its being done at all - sadly.
Fewer still, wish to come close to doing anything about it - sadly.
Of any who are left - they've gone for trying to sue ma bell - and are apparently going to fail miserably at best.
Whatever happens, our kids-kids will probably laugh at the idea that anyone in the past thought that their communications, or lives for that matter, had any expectation of privacy at all.
By the time kids these days have kids of their own, we'll be well on our way to a complete idiocracy that's already ready for a loving big brother. |
|
|
|
 KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | reply to EPS
said by EPS:Seriously- the ones people should be going after are the administration officials... I don't see why anyone is ranting about attacking corporate entities- if the administration officials weren't pressuring the telcos to give up data then there would be no problem. Or, the Telcos could have said we can't do that it is against the law unless we have a warrant and then we will be happy to give you whatever is covered in the warrant.
Both are to blame.
--
How hard does DRM have to bite before business abandon it? |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | And I'm sure that would have made the government go away. Yes, certainly. And there would be no regulatory retribution, correct? Oh, sure.
Why should the responsibility be on any non-governmental entity to determine whether the government's requests are legal or not? When the government makes a demand, claiming national security, of a company, the company should not have to contact its legal department first.
But of course, the officials can't be held responsible until they're out of office, and even then only if the future AG decides to press charges- it's so much easier to go after the essentially powerless entity. (A telco, even one as big as "the new" at&t, has NO leverage compared to the United States Government, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise) |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
2 edits | said by EPS:Why should the responsibility be on any non-governmental entity to determine whether the government's requests are legal or not? When the government makes a demand, claiming national security, of a company, the company should not have to contact its legal department first. The We only did what we were told to do argument was disqualified by both the Mei Lei massacre, as well as the Nuremberg trials, to name but two instances where that pathetic excuse was trotted out and then subsequently shot down and thrown out.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | zing! |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to EPS
wow, you sound amazingly like amigoboy. same rant commentary and all... |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to major marco
said by major marco:The We only did what we were told to do argument was disqualified by both the Mei Lei massacre, as well as the Nuremberg trials, to name but two instances where that pathetic excuse was trotted out and then subsequently shot down and thrown out. Usual hyperbole. There is a law which allows telcos to participate as they did when the AG certifies no warrant is necessary. You want the telcos to determine the AG is wrong. There is no provision in the law for that.
See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B): »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
The fact that the immunity deal was revised to essentially say the same thing as the law goes one step further toward showing there is substantial support that the telcos acted according to the law.
You may not like it. But comparisons to the Holocaust is childish at best.
Mark |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Mark, to continue our exchange from a few months back--just to recap, you are absolutely correct in stating that US Code allows companies to wiretap without a warrant if the AG certifies that no warrant was necessary. But there's one key problem here: even when the AG's certification lapsed, the telcos still let the warrantless wiretapping program continue, despite the lack of any legal justification for the program.
Let me elaborate. In 2004, John Ashcroft (then AG) had been drafting a letter certifying the wiretapping program's legality every 45 days. Each letter was only valid for 30 days, at which point the certification lapsed. To ensure the continued operation of the wiretapping program, a new letter was prepared before the previous one had lapsed.
In March 2004, Ashcroft temporarily stepped down as AG due to emergency gall bladder surgery. For a few days, James Comey served as acting Attorney General, during which time Ashcroft had no official powers.
But there was a problem--the reauthorization deadline was approaching, and Ashcroft lacked the authority to sign off on it as he had been doing. So Andrew Card, then White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto Gonzales came to James Comey and asked him to recertify the wiretapping program.
Comey said no. Amazingly, Card and Gonzales then went to Ashcroft--still recovering from a serious surgery--and tried to get him to sign off. Obviously, Ashcroft refused, as he had no legal standing while Comey was acting AG. Comey resigned a few days later, and the program was recertified--but not before it had lapsed for a few crucial hours.
Mark, if in fact the program continued after the certification had lapsed, then how can you argue that the telcos didn't blatantly break the law? We know that domestic citizens were being wiretapped, so FISA exceptions don't apply here.
The law you cite--passed by Congress--explicitly requires the AG himself to certify all warrantless domestic wiretapping. Period.
more info here-
»www.huffingtonpost.com/shayana-k···928.html
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by jaminus:But there's one key problem here: even when the AG's certification lapsed, the telcos still let the warrantless wiretapping program continue, despite the lack of any legal justification for the program. Comey's testimony says it was certified without the AG: »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/ (see 2/3 down). Since the AG works for the President, one could argue he can stand in for the AG. Personally I don't like that. I'd like to see it litigated.
But, at least we're past denying that the law exists and applied to *everything* before and after that one-year period (before Ashcroft was replaced by Gonzalez). I congratulate you for that monumental improvement in the discussion here. 
Mark |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | reply to major marco
Yeah but those are criminal acts. This bill doesn't grant telcos criminal immunity from any laws they violated. |
|
| reply to EPS
Reps pass Fisa bill Reps pass Fisa bill
»House passes the Fisa renewal bill 293-129 |
|
major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Why blame the telcos said by amigo_boy:said by major marco:The We only did what we were told to do argument was disqualified by both the Mei Lei massacre, as well as the Nuremberg trials, to name but two instances where that pathetic excuse was trotted out and then subsequently shot down and thrown out. Usual hyperbole. There is a law which allows telcos to participate as they did when the AG certifies no warrant is necessary. You want the telcos to determine the AG is wrong. There is no provision in the law for that. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B): » www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.htmlThe fact that the immunity deal was revised to essentially say the same thing as the law goes one step further toward showing there is substantial support that the telcos acted according to the law. You may not like it. But comparisons to the Holocaust is childish at best. Mark Mark Mark Mark. As someone else has already suggested, please don't forego your present career for one in legal writing. Just because you trot out the same section of the United States Code in post after post after post, trying desperately for someone, somewhere to credit you, it doesn't mean you're persuasive or even a little bit on the mark.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by major marco:Just because you trot out the same section of the United States Code in post after post after post, Ok. What are we supposed to do with that law? It must be there for a reason, right? It says telcos are allowed to handover data if the AG certifies a warrant isn't necessary. So, when would that apply?
I wish I could selectively choose which laws are meaningful.
Mark |
|
