dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2419
share rss forum feed

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Good

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.

Has the EFF or anyone actually proved that our rights were abused or are they still just blowing smoke?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 recommendations

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.

No harm was done to any US citizens. The EFF & ACLU are on a witch hunt and are just looking to punish monetarily AT&T & Verizon in order to earn fees for their organizations. Call it the "Full employment for class action lawyers" lawsuit.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

Re: Good

Name change, but still the same
--
BlooMe
mlundin

join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
said by FFH5:

No harm was done to any US citizens.
BULLSHIT. Harm is done to EVERY US citizen EVERY time a right is violated. How many rights are you willing to give away before you don't have any left? My answer is none, and so I have been harmed.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Good

said by mlundin:

Harm is done to EVERY US citizen EVERY time a right is violated.
How has harm been done to you personally?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

How has harm been done to you personally?
are you actually curious about how he was personally harmed, or do you just not care about the constitution?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Good

said by nasadude:

are you actually curious about how he was personally harmed, or do you just not care about the constitution?
Yes. That is why I asked the question.

You can't credibly claim your rights were violated without them actually being violated.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

said by nasadude:

are you actually curious about how he was personally harmed, or do you just not care about the constitution?
Yes. That is why I asked the question.

You can't credibly claim your rights were violated without them actually being violated.
It's a baited question, any answer would be related to telecommunications or internet or similar. Those things are all priviledges...

Nice try at the set and spike by you two.
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~
lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

1 recommendation

Would that apply to the rights of 401k holders whose 401k's included bonds with GM & Chrysler? Savings and investment plans further decimated by Obama contrary to standing US law, essentially denying due process and equal protection to the evil investors in order to payback the UAW.

Clearly a violation of their due process and equal protection rights.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Good

Well you gotta figure since all these bailouts pretty much run afoul of the Constitution anyway what is a little more icing on the cake?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
"No harm was done to any US citizens."

Who knows. After all, who watches the watchers? ...Or have you never considered that

I was not the least bit surprised when Obama "flip flopped" on this issue. When he first said he was against it, he was either completely ignorant of what was really going on, or didn't care and just made an empty promise anyway.

As far as those organizations being on a "witch hunt" - that's a nice way to prop up your obvious dislike for them, which should not be the issue here. Regardless of your opinion of these organizations, there is a very valid point being made. If you disagree, then let's hear some debate of substance instead of conceited opinion.

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

Re: Good

said by amungus:

"No harm was done to any US citizens."

Who knows. After all, who watches the watchers? ...Or have you never considered that
Those that are in support of these claims and lawsuits being dismissed will fall back on legal answers that essentially make any national spying method or program not exist. You're suppose to be a good sheep and pretend you don't know that there are pieces of hardware that exist that make this claimed activity pretty simple.

Then when the argument changes direction it will be pointed out only criminals and terrorists have anything to hide so get over yourself.

What you probably won't see them pointing out right now is the fact that these things are being dismissed because there is a law on the books that negates their case. It's easier to wave their hatred soaked political flag that points out they know more than you do. The perpetual troll that sees too much as being real but likes new names.
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~

RSN404

@cox.net
"Who will guard the guards?"
-Digital Fortress

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Exactly right... Perhaps some physical harm would have come to you or I or our families had these wiretaps not been done. I would find it very hard to believe that NO terrorist plots were not uncovered and dealt with.

TKJunkMail
Premium
join:2005-12-09

Re: Good

OH NOES! If you're willing to give up your rights so easily, I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.
cafields

join:2003-12-17
Muncie, IN

1 edit
no ones, as you say, blowing smoke. I decided not to vote for obama, after hillary dropped out, then obama voted to give full immunity to the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, before that at two or more of his BS speeches, he said he would never give immunity to the telecoms for illegal wiretapping.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by pnh102:

Has the EFF or anyone actually proved that our rights were abused or are they still just blowing smoke?
Congress voted for telecom immunity BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. There would be no need for telecom immunity if EFF just made it up.

EFF is 100% right here. The US Gov't exceeded its rights under the Constitution, infringing on the rights of the people guaranteed in the Constitution. To provide immunity, the government can't simply make unconstitutional law and call it "good," it has to change the constitution itself.

Was I harmed individually? No, but since when is that a criteria? We The People were harmed, collectively, by a government which exceeded its bounds.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Good

said by funchords:

EFF is 100% right here. The US Gov't exceeded its rights under the Constitution, infringing on the rights of the people guaranteed in the Constitution. To provide immunity, the government can't simply make unconstitutional law and call it "good," it has to change the constitution itself.
That's all fine and dandy, but again, can you provide any evidence that the US government broadly and systematically violated the rights of the American people with regard to telephone call log monitoring?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

badtrip
I heart the East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA

Re: Good

said by pnh102:

That's all fine and dandy, but again, can you provide any evidence that the US government broadly and systematically violated the rights of the American people with regard to telephone call log monitoring?
I believe that's exactly what these court cases are all about. Remember that courts not only decide punishment for individuals who commit crimes, they also decide whether a crime was committed in the first place.

The Bush/Obama administrations are trying to subvert the second of the two court functions I mentioned above.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by pnh102:

That's all fine and dandy, but again, can you provide any evidence that the US government broadly and systematically violated the rights of the American people with regard to telephone call log monitoring?
Not just telephone call logs,

»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
said by funchords:

Congress voted for telecom immunity BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. There would be no need for telecom immunity if EFF just made it up.
I'm sorry, we must inject some reality here.

The EFF, ACLU, and the like have lawyers who will file lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, and will appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal, until hell freezes over, on this issue and ones like it.

It DOES NOT MATTER what really happened.

What matters is that these businesses are being significantly harmed by the actions in the courts, whether or not they eventually "lose" or "win".

Congress, the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, have all concluded that this is not in their or our best interest.

Thus the so-called "immunity" legislation.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: Good

One other reality check:

No laws were broken by the telcom companies' actions. Stop making things up by continuing to bleat "Laws were broken!" They weren't.

The lawsuits are civil lawsuits claimng harm to individuals or groups of individuals. There has never been a hint of criminal prosecutions from the Justice Department of either administration, or anyone else with the power to bring a criminal action.
jauman

join:2001-12-06
Kent, WA

Re: Good

We don't know if laws were or were not broken.

With the passing of the aforementioned law granting retroactive immunity, and the federal governments assertion of privilege over releasing info, gathering said evidence would be hard.

In the absence of more concrete evidence than the telecom room bits , criminal charges by the Justice Department (or any other prosecuting body) would be thinly-based at best.

So, in the absence of true knowledge about what's going on, how should we proceed? Should we abdicate all critical inspection of our government's activities and "just trust them?"

We each draw that line based on our personal comfort level with the topic in question, and clearly for some this issue is no longer behind that line. They hope for more inspection of what's going on.

Asking my government to tell me what's going on is far from absurd. I don't know that something bad went on here or not, but asking my government to rule transparently is absolutely my right. It is *my* government after all.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by MyDogHsFleas:

'm sorry, we must inject some reality here.

The EFF, ACLU, and the like have lawyers who will file lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, and will appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal, until hell freezes over, on this issue and ones like it.
For a post that started as yours did, that's not reality at all, it's beside the point.

If EFF would lose in court, then there is simply no need for immunity. The court would simply dismiss with prejudice and the case is closed, forever.

It's not like EFF's "victims" (the telcos) were being abused by the process, nor is it like EFF's comparatively very meager budget can afford to file a string of non-sense lawsuits against these very monied telecoms.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Good

said by funchords:

If EFF would lose in court, then there is simply no need for immunity. The court would simply dismiss with prejudice and the case is closed, forever.
You completely miss my point. Please reread my post.

Stop and think for a minute. This is not a TV show. This is actual reality.

Our legal system allows a group like the EFF or ACLU to cause immense damage to a company by filing broad-brush lawsuit after lawsuit. It doesn't matter what the eventual outcome is. The harm is already done.

Both Democratic and Republican-controlled Congress, and both Bush and Obama administrations, decided to shield the telcos from this lawsuit abuse, for the good of the country.

That is the reality.

It's not like EFF's "victims" (the telcos) were being abused by the process, nor is it like EFF's comparatively very meager budget can afford to file a string of non-sense lawsuits against these very monied telecoms.
Please take a trip to the real world and look at how many huge companies, even industries, have been crippled and sometimes literally put out of business by lawyers filing class action lawsuits and pursuing them.

Why do you think that half the ads on daytime TV are trying to get people to call 800 numbers and get added to class action lawsuits?

The money involved is IMMENSE.

Now, I don't think EFF/ACLU are doing it for the money. But they will gladly take it if they win and use it to fund even more lawsuit driven policy making.

TKJunkMail
Premium
join:2005-12-09

Re: Good

Our legal system allows a group like the EFF or ACLU to cause immense damage to a company by filing broad-brush lawsuit after lawsuit. It doesn't matter what the eventual outcome is. The harm is already done.
Please enlighten us by providing the names of said companies or industries.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Good

said by TKJunkMail:

Our legal system allows a group like the EFF or ACLU to cause immense damage to a company by filing broad-brush lawsuit after lawsuit. It doesn't matter what the eventual outcome is. The harm is already done.
Please enlighten us by providing the names of said companies or industries.
If you read a business newspaper like the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Daily you see examples every day. It is routine that whenever a company's stock goes down a bunch, a drug or product has a new test that reports negatively, or a consumer company's bills, promotions, or terms and conditions are slightly confusing to someone, that a slew of class action lawsuits are filed. And the companies involved usually simply settle because it's much cheaper than going through the legal process. Then the costs are passed on to you, and that company becomes less competitive globally.

Why do you think that every time you get on an airplane they tell you how to fasten your seat belt?

Why do you think that every time you buy an extension cord it has big stickers all over it?

Why do you think that every instruction manual for every kitchen gadget starts off with multiple densely typed pages of "safety instructions"?

Why do you think that a good portion of the ads on daytime TV are for you to call an 800 number if you think you may have been affected by some drug/product/company's practices?

It's a huge business.

take a look here for some examples

»www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/stor···?s=49878

»www.heartland.org/publications/l···_82.html

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
Your (non-)argument seems to be, "because frivolous lawsuits exist, then this must be one also," and, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is not in 'actual reality'."

If you don't think that the EFF hasn't had massive positive influence on our digital rights, then you don't know the history of the EFF.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: Good

said by funchords:

If you don't think that the EFF hasn't had massive positive influence on our digital rights, then you don't know the history of the EFF.
Muckraking can have positive influence. But, it's still muckraking.

The EFF appeared to be like many other advocacy groups when it did nothing to repeal 18 USC 2511, nor explain to its members the legitimate reason 2511 exists (a congressional recognition of the constitutional authority of the Executive branch to conduct surveillance). Just "law breaking, committed a crime..."

The result was that Congress reaffirmed the meaning of 2511 by basing so-called immunity on that existing law.

How did that help anyone? EFF supporters were as ignorant as they were before all this started. The law is still on the books. And, it will be virtually impossible to challenge the meaning of 2511 now that Congress has reaffirmed its Congressional intent.

The only thing I saw was EFF doing what advocacy groups do all the time: Whip the membership into a frenzy so they'll donate more money.

Mark

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

Re: Good

said by amigo_boy:

The EFF appeared to be like many other advocacy groups when it did nothing to repeal 18 USC 2511, nor explain to its members the legitimate reason 2511 exists (a congressional recognition of the constitutional authority of the Executive branch to conduct surveillance). Just "law breaking, committed a crime..."
Ummm, no. That's piling on a lot of garbage that just isn't part of the case here. My short answer to you on this is that we all know why wiretapping is authorized and unauthorized and these provisions in 2511 are non-controversial. Taking someone to task for not trying to repeal the Wiretap Act is not making an argument, it's throwing fodder.

said by amigo_boy:

The result was that Congress reaffirmed the meaning of 2511 by basing so-called immunity on that existing law.
This isn't due process of law, it's avoiding due process of law. It's allowing a current congress to place down an interpretation of the acts of an earlier congress -- a move that is extra-Constitutional in itself.

said by amigo_boy:

The only thing I saw was EFF doing what advocacy groups do all the time: Whip the membership into a frenzy so they'll donate more money.
I think you're choosing what to see. What actually happened, though? EFF got nearly a universal chorus of articles pointing out how futile their effort was. That's not a particularly smart fund-raising technique. It is, however, an example of taking a principled stand.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: Good

said by funchords:

said by amigo_boy:

The EFF appeared to be like many other advocacy groups when it did nothing to repeal 18 USC 2511, nor explain to its members the legitimate reason 2511 exists (a congressional recognition of the constitutional authority of the Executive branch to conduct surveillance). Just "law breaking, committed a crime..."
Ummm, no. That's piling on a lot of garbage that just isn't part of the case here. My short answer to you on this is that we all know why wiretapping is authorized and unauthorized and these provisions in 2511 are non-controversial. Taking someone to task for not trying to repeal the Wiretap Act is not making an argument, it's throwing fodder.
I was only pointing out that the EFF never mentioned 18 USC 2511 to its membership, or acted proactively to repeal the law instead of waiting for a crisis.

It's my position that advocacy groups have an incentive to let crises happy (or depict everything as a crisis) to generate donations. A benighted membership is more likely to succumb to Group Think, write checks, etc.

said by funchords:

said by amigo_boy:The result was that Congress reaffirmed the meaning of 2511 by basing so-called immunity on that existing law.
This isn't due process of law, it's avoiding due process of law. It's allowing a current congress to place down an interpretation of the acts of an earlier congress -- a move that is extra-Constitutional in itself.
When the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of a law, it is common for them to consider the Congressional intent of that law. In the case of 18 USC 2511, members of the original Congress which passed the law indicated it was an acknowledgment of the Executive Branch's historic power to conduct surveillance. It was their way to avoid constitutional problems with the rest of the law they passed at that time.

The Congress which passed so-called "immunity" essentially affirmed that intent. They applied immunity if 2511 had been adhered to (the Executive branch "certified" no warrant was necessary).

You may be correct that the so-called "immunity" law is unconstitutional in the way it removed 2511's judicial review from the normal judicial process. But, that doesn't affect the fact that Congress added to the congressional intent which the Supreme Court would consider if the constitutionality of 2511 is ever challenged.

We can thank the EFF for that. They probably think it's worth it if they got a lot of donations due to their bombastic rants to their membership about "broken laws" and "criminal eavesdropping."

Mark
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by pnh102:

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.

....
they already have cover from lawsuits - it's called "following the law". Qwest declined to illegally wiretap their customers at the request of the government and they aren't being sued. They followed the law.

My understanding is that some amount of surveillance could have been done within the law, but the administration at the time didn't want to be bothered with those pesky laws (and that rag, the constitution). They were found out and the companies that didn't follow the law are being sued.

the only reason the lawsuits were thrown out is because congress retroactively changed the law to make the previous unlawful behaviour lawful.

Isn't it great when private industries own congress?

••••••

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
said by pnh102:

Private industries that can provide assist the government in national security matters need some kind of cover from lawsuits or else they won't be bothered to cooperate with the government when their help is needed.
So it's lawsuits and money and not the rule of law that will make them cooperate. They'll willingly break the law and not help the government?

If the government is following the law when wanting information from a business they are not asking for this info, they are telling them what they are going to have handed over to them.

So shall we go back to the spring and early summer of the year 2001 and reveal what was going on or has that time in history been given magical immunity? You're arguing against something as if it didn't exist because you're holding it in your hands behind your back where nobody can see it...
--
~~This is not The Greatest Sig in the World without annoying urls, no. This is just a tribute.~~
The NSA found out about my child porn studio because of their mass surveillance and therefore violated my civil rights.