dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
33
« Huh?Change »
This is a sub-selection from Good

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

1 edit

1 recommendation

funchords to pnh102

MVM

to pnh102

Re: Good

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.

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

pnh102

Premium Member

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?

badtrip
Premium Member
join:2004-03-20

badtrip

Premium Member

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.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
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

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

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

jauman

Member

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
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to pnh102

MVM

to pnh102
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/w ··· _pf.html
funchords

funchords to MyDogHsFleas

MVM

to MyDogHsFleas
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.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

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.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

said by Jim Kirk:

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. ··· ?s=49878

»www.heartland.org/public ··· _82.html

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

funchords to MyDogHsFleas

MVM

to MyDogHsFleas
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.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

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
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

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.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

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
« Huh?Change »
This is a sub-selection from Good