how-to block ads
|
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to huntml
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos...
said by huntml  :...but it'll never happen. The reason? The immunity proposals are less about protecting the telcos' bottom line; that's secondary. What they are really about is quashing the lawsuits so the details of what the administration did/is doing will never_see the light of day. No, that's not it - it's designed to allow corporations to help out with these types of endeavors. If the companies don't get immunity for something like this, then what chance will there ever be that these companies will ever again help out with a program like this? Almost zero. This is no different than the attempts to get the president's national security advisor to testify before Congress. The nsa isn't a cabinet officer - he/she is a special advisor to the president, and so is outside the jurisdiction of Congressional inquiry. It's absolutely critical that the president get unvarnished information from his advisors, but if an advisor believes that he/she may be called to publicly testify about any such information, they will be less inclined to give truthful assessments to the president.
This is really no different. Open the companies up to prosecution, and the chance that they'll ever willingly assist in matters of national security vanish. | |
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | NO, as long as they follow the law these companies will be fine. The problem is that they did NOT follow the law. If they had asked for the proper warrants, then there would be no issue. | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
3 edits | reply to JPL
If you feel there is a case to be made to give the telcos and ISPs indemity for helping out the government, then make it, and get the law passed.
If you think that the government needs to have double-super-secret access to telecom traffic in such a way that there is effectively no oversight over what they are collecting/monitoring and what they are doing with it, as a matter of national security, then make a case for it and get laws passed allowing for it.
But don't make those laws retroactive, so there is no way to find out whether things that were done in the past were legal or not.
Even if I knew what the government was doing with the telcos and agreed that it was necessary, I still would not agree with how they went about it and how they are going about trying to cover it up now.
We live in a nation of laws first, men (and the supersecret spy organizations they work for) second.
The primacy of the rule of law is probably the most important principle of our system of government. What they are doing undermines the rule of law, and is a very, very bad precedent for this country. | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to Lazlow
Right. The issue of liability is only related to the allegation that the telcos violated their customers' privacy in violation of law.
If they break the law, they'd have no liability, and no need for immunity.
Besides, has anyone heard a telco spokeman publicly ask for immunity? I've only heard the government asking for it. This shows pretty clearly that the concern is more about what might be uncovered were trials to go forward than it is about whether the telcos will be held liable for it.
Besides that, there is a big point everyone is missing in this.
As pointed out by Dodd yesterday, Qwest was the only telco that said, 'no, get a warrant and come back, and we'll give you the data/system access, etc.'
The government did not go to FISA and get a warrant and come back to Qwest.
What are we to make of this? The way I see it, it could mean only one of three things:
1. The government was willing to potentially let some terrorist continue to hatch his international plans and put American lives at risk, rather than deal with the FISA court.
2. The government knew that all the terrorists were either VZ, SBC, or ATT subs, so they didn't need access to Qwest's network.
3. The government knew that the sort of data/telecom traffic access it wanted wasn't something that the FISA court would allow, according to the rules put in place for evaluating such requests (which, as I understand it, are very favorable to the government).
Which do you think is the most likely reason? | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
said by huntml :We live in a nation of laws first, men (and the supersecret spy organizations they work for) second. The primacy of the rule of law is probably the most important principle of our system of government. What they are doing undermines the rule of law, and is a very, very bad precedent for this country. I chuckle every time I read this. This nation of laws provides most naturally for Congressional investigation, impeachment hearings and lengthy prison sentences for administration members who violated the law.
If you can't rise to that level of the system, it's childish to resort to civil court and preach about "a nation of laws." This would be like the police using civil court to get DUI convictions because "it's easier." If that was happening you guys would be having an absolute fit because it violates your perception of the "rule of law."
Mark | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
2 edits | said by amigo_boy :
This would be like the police using civil court to get DUI convictions because "it's easier." If that was happening you guys would be having an absolute fit because it violates your perception of the "rule of law."
I absolutely agree with you, Mark, that this approach of going at the telcos in civil court is, well, bullshit. I *wish* that Congress had the balls to really look into this.
But! It is *legal*, and it looks like the only way we have at the moment to (1) find out what they really are/were doing and (2) *begin* the process of bringing anyone who violated law to account (because I firmly believe there are smoking guns that might be uncovered during that trial, else, it's hard to understand why the administration is so determined to prevent them).
So, let's just see where this all goes, shall we? | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by huntml :I absolutely agree with you, Mark, that this approach of going at the telcos in civil court is, well, bullshit. I *wish* that Congress had the balls to really look into this. Thanks. I'm glad to know we agree on something. That's always a start. I also think it's good to realize both sides have good intentions (nobody's intentionally trying to subvert the nation).
It sounds to me like Congress did look into it and has amended the law to legalize it, with more controls. Why is that not good enough? (Re, my other post about previous expedient actions in this country that were excused when made legal).
said by huntml :So, let's just see where this all goes, shall we? I'll wager money that the telcos get immunity. It will be packaged into omnibus legislation and politicians will have an "out" by saying there were too many good things that needed passage. "We'll have to go back and fix that one, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more...)." Or, they'll let FISA come close to sunsetting, and preserving it will be the expedient excuse for accepting immunity ("but, we'll have to go back and fix that...").
And there's always Presidential immunity. If Bill Clinton can pardon a bunch of convicted drug dealers, I'm sure President Bush can swing something for the telcos. It won't be hard for the federal courts to find that it applies to civil matters (when those taking the civil route are doing so because they can't get the criminal route to work for them).
To me, it's a given. They (even the politicians ostensibly opposed to it) are just looking for a way to pass it. It's going to be like how the Brady Bill passed (Bob Dole on the floor passing it by himself after all the Senators went on holiday recess).
Mark | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to huntml
I'm in flavor of intensifying tacos.
said by huntml :Which do you think is the most likely reason? That would be Door # None, Monty.
The sheer volume of data collected in a day is beyond description. The hardware and programming to sort through it is a major undertaking. At the end there will still be several times more data of interest than there will be manpower to pursue it.
There are other issues such as the dozens of decryption al-gore-rhythms (there he is AGAIN screwing things up) that will to be applied to may thousands of potential candidates. Translating IP addresses into people, prioritizing k-porn, domestic and foreign threats, illegal material info, spicy political tidbits.... A single week will be gigabytes beyond counting.
Another reason to not to worry about Quest is that they probably peer with the other telcos somewhere, so the NSA (Naked Scottish Army?) will just get the data from friendler pipes. Besides, the Quest honchos will get theirs one day for having the unmitigated GALL to tell the NSA no.
Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't.
NV
--
My children used to Speak in Tongues. But after years of Speech Therapy, English is their First Language! | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| said by Noah Vail :That would be Door # None, Monty. The sheer volume of data collected in a day is beyond description. The hardware and programming to sort through it is a major undertaking. At the end there will still be several times more data of interest than there will be manpower to pursue it. There are other issues such as the dozens of decryption al-gore-rhythms (there he is AGAIN screwing things up) that will to be applied to may thousands of potential candidates. Translating IP addresses into people, prioritizing k-porn, domestic and foreign threats, illegal material info, spicy political tidbits.... A single week will be gigabytes beyond counting. So what are you saying: that those stories of NSA black boxes, etc., are just fictions--no one could possibly examine all that data anyway, so it's highly unlikely that anyone would bother to build a system to access it all? Or are you saying that there's so much data that they can't possibly examine more than a tiny fraction of it, therefore there's no reason, statistically speaking, for any particular person to feel intruded upon, and thus any need, really, for oversight of whatever it is they're doing?
Either way, quite simply, your argument, well, it sucks, for reasons I won't bother to detail since anyone who'd make such an argument probably wouldn't be willing to entertain or able to understand them.
Another reason to not to worry about Quest is that they probably peer with the other telcos somewhere, so the NSA (Naked Scottish Army?) will just get the data from friendler pipes. Certainly there's a lot of peering, and virtually, maybe even actually, nobody's data goes through just one ISP or telco's pipes.
Just curious: what percentage of all the rest of the pipes in the system do you think they'd have to have tapped to be ~99+% sure that they were getting access to all of ~95% of data originating out of or terminating in Qwests IP/POTS networks (99/95 being a typical, generally accepted statistical criterion corresponding to 'high confidence')?
In order not to come back at Qwest they'd have to have very high confidence they had all their traffic covered elsewhere, wouldn't they?
So...maybe, the fact that they apparently didn't feel the need to come back to Qwest with a FISA warrant is only evidence that they basically had everything covered everywhere else anyway?
I'm not sure if this is intended to make me feel better or worse.
Besides, the Quest honchos will get theirs one day for having the unmitigated GALL to tell the NSA no. I'm sure you're right about that; in fact, it already appears to be happening. Can't be *too* obvious about it though.
Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't. I'm sure you're right about that too. | |
NetLarry
join:2007-03-18
Johnstown, PA
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail :said by huntml :Which do you think is the most likely reason? That would be Door # None, Monty. Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't. NV ........
Makes me wonder what the NSA heard on Harry Reid's line... | |
|
