dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
48
share rss forum feed

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

Commentary

"The Supreme Court this week followed hard party lines in killing off one of the last few legal challenges to the government's warrantless wiretapping efforts. Those efforts, exposed by whistleblowers at AT&T and at the NSA, involve carriers willfully dumping all private citizen voice and data into the lap of the NSA with little to no respect of privacy or wiretap law at the time."

They are not warrantless. The FISA court issues warrants under the guidelines of the FISA act. Congress reviews the details periodically (in secret).

You have no idea what the NSA is or is not gathering, much less what they are doing with it, under what oversight. Somebody saw some cables, that's all you know.

"After it was found the government (both Bush and Obama administrations) and carriers were breaking the law, the government began the process of making what they did retroactively legal by -- changing the law, attacking whistleblowers and hiding all program details. After the launch of FISA, they've essentially been playing a game of obfuscation patty cake with the press and civil rights groups."

Um, what? What laws were bring broken, exactly? And what exactly was made "retroactively legal"? That is not what happened. You are probably referring to the telco immunity amendment. It had zero to do with lawbreaking, except inasmuch as it specifically excluded illegal activities from the immunity. Rather, it provided a shield against punitive civil suits for this very specific area where the government needed the telcos help, much like the government itself is shielded.

Attacking whistleblowers? When did I miss that one? Unless you're referring to someone who puts a massive dump of classified information in the hands of our enemies as a "whistleblower".

"As many had feared, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision (pdf) this week that argues that citizens can't sue over the warrantless wiretapping program -- because they can't clearly illustrate harm. They're of course unable to show direct harm because the government refuses to be transparent about how it spies on its own civilians, and attacks anyone who tries to change that lack of transparency."

Repeating falsehoods like "warrantless wiretapping" doesn't make them true.

How exactly is the government supposed to be "more transparent" without giving away exactly the information that the people they are trying to catch would love to have? It's classified for a reason.