TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
... you can get the info here:
»www.visi.com/juan/congress/
and then you don't have to use the pre-written EFF form opposed to immunity.
I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity.
P.S. The House leadership decides on who gets to be the House members of the conference committee. So, depending on their views on immunity, they can put House members on the committee that support or don't support immunity.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| said by TKJunkMail  :... you can get the info here: » www.visi.com/juan/congress/and then you don't have to use the pre-written EFF form opposed to immunity. I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity. That's all and well.
But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience.
It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends.
Were is the privacy and when and were do you draw the lines.
The only way to have privacy seems to be to talk in your own house or in person.
I really have nothing to hide but feels weird people listing in on you or just the idea of it even if they don't pick me to watch.
I do understand the terrorist issue though and I agree that just like you would want protection from a burglar from the police I would want to be protected from Terrorists. Thank you.
It is a give and take as long as line are drawn and I am not being just peeped on for no reason just to invade my privacy.
I do understand the concerns on both sides.  |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | reply to TKJunkMail
What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Congratulations, you've become your very own stereotype. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :That's all and well. But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience. It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The immunity provision has NOTHING to do with the parts of the Bill that affect spying going forward. Your concerns about spying were addressed in the FISA bill. There will be oversight.
The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TK Junk Mail
"I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. I don't want to hear it will cost us money in the end, because how can you attach a cost protecting our right$ I Bushes rhetoric seems to suggest that the only way he can protect us is by violating our rights and then giving immunity to those that did. So if he vetoes the bill isn't he dooming us to the terrorist? 
--
BlooMe |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by Surfinusa :That's all and well. But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience. It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The immunity provision has NOTHING to do with the parts of the Bill that affect spying going forward. Your concerns about spying were addressed in the FISA bill. There will be oversight. The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. As long as there is proper over site I am not really concerned. |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to Surfinusa
I agree, this is ridiculous. The government can have all the terrorist fighting power they need with warrants. Meaning when they find something odd, they get a warrant so that only information on Joe Smo (and any contacts) is collected. This free-for-all, let the government get information on anyone without warrant or cause is a violation of privacy. I have already wrote my congressman and hope a stop is put on this. I say let Bush veto all the bills he wants. If he keeps vetoing all this bills it will look as though he is not willing to compromise (he isn't, never has), and will keep lowering his approval. This is why congresses ratings are so low, they keep giving in to a non-compromising president just to make it look as though they got something done. This needs to stop, they need to stand up to the poor policies of this president.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :... The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. no, the immunity part is the Bush administration trying to prevent any accountability for illegally spying on U.S. citizens.
Since the 70s we have had a law called FISA that is quite clear about when the telcos can provide information to the government - when the government presents a valid court order or certification that the request to turn over information is legal. Nearly every legal expert that has voiced an opinion agrees with this.
If the govt complied with FISA and provided the proper authorization to the telcos, the telcos have nothing to worry about, they will win their legal cases.
If the govt did not comply with FISA and just asked the companies to cooperate "because George or Dick sez so", then the telcos clearly violated the law that was in effect at the time.
The fact that both Bush and the telcos are pushing so hard for immunity seems to pretty strongly imply they both broke the law and they both know it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :... you can get the info here: » www.visi.com/juan/congress/and then you don't have to use the pre-written EFF form opposed to immunity. Thanks for posting that. It's nice to see some *balance* on DSL Reports.
Mark |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely* followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. *merely = knowingly and willingly; complicit in breaking the law and deciding to follow the illegal request by the government
therefore, they should be held accountable. |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | reply to nasadude
Don't forget they have up to 72 hours AFTER they start a wiretap to get a warrant |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. Civil court isn't where you prosecute broken laws and criminal behavior. It's where groups with political agendas bleed someone dry with class action lawsuits just because they can't accomplish their goal through criminal and impeachment courts.
Don't you find it odd that DSL Reports couches its article as "if you support things like due process..." when a rational person would say that using civil court to accomplish what can't be accomplished through criminal/impeachment court is essentially circumventing due process?
That's the problem I have with all this. I'd be perfectly happy if telco customers and investors (with a contractual relationship) sued telcos if they could prove damages. But, this is just a bunch of unrelated parties (with an agenda) using customers and investors to pursue "broken laws" instead of actual damages. To me, that's as much of an abuse of the system as the President and telcos are accused of.
Mark |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
Thats your a$$umption. How do you know that they have caught anyone with their cloak of secrecy,just blindly believe them? shouldn't the government follow the law when they make such a "request", Isn't that what "FISA" was for, hell, they could even file after the fact, that alone speaks volumes? Just because the government "requests" something, doesn't mean you have to blindly follow...and makes it legal. Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :said by TKJunkMail :The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely* followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. *merely = knowingly and willingly; complicit in breaking the law and deciding to follow the illegal request by the government therefore, they should be held accountable. Exactly, and the fact they were installing this black room equipment before 9.11.2001 throws the whole patriot argument out the window and is probably the only aspect of everything that they don't want seeing light in a court. As soon as this administration took office there was no limit to what would happen to better a select few. War is big money and we've been living in a country where money trumps the will of the people for some time now. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to woody7
God and Country!
TelCos or Die! |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to amigo_boy
the "agenda" is the rule of law.
and again, try to refocus on the issue and not continue with a sad attempt to dilute the illegality or process of obtaining justice. no one except TKJunkmail is buying it. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
You continue to overlook the fact that they violated our rights, REGARDLESS of who made the request because that is what you choose to do because you have a vested interest in the telcoms not being punished for breaking the law. You are as bad as they are, because you are willing to sell your rights for your portfolio. You know what they call a person that gives them self up for money?
There was oversight BEFORE they did this. It is called the judicial process that REQUIRED them to get a warrant BEFORE they started monitoring us. I don't care if Christ himself came down and asked for the monitoring, they were OBLIGATED by current law to get permission from an oversight authority established in the laws that existed the day they asked for it.
You continue to defend them because it is monetarily beneficial to you. However, I would say put your greed aside, sell your freaking stock and allow them to pay the price they SHOULD pay. Then rebuy their stock at a lower price so you don't look like such a corporate whore. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :the "agenda" is the rule of law. The law has been followed. The issues debated by the public and on the floor of government. Surveillance laws modified to better accommodate the President's claimed needs. The "pragmatic" actions that occurred prior to this were found not to rise to the level of impeachment. And, likewise, the DoJ didn't find it reasonable to file criminal charges.
It seems to me like the laws are working, but opponents of immunity don't like it. Therefore they want to use *civil* court to accomplish what they can't through the process this far. That's a good reason for immunity! They're perverting the system in the same way they claim the President and telcos did.
And, remember, this is hardly without precedent. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt "broke the laws" when they considered it necessary for the public interest. Their actions were later made legal by amending the laws. Those who carried out those Presidents' will weren't sued in civil court just because those who opposed those Presidents couldn't deal with the fact that the system worked in a way they wished it hadn't.
Mark |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
I would agree somewhat but with a different angle.
You punish a corporation by making it pay money. You can't put the corporation in jail to serve time. However, you can put the executives that gave the order to follow this criminal behavior in jail.
Therefore I say you punish the corporation by fining them (and allowing them pay those they violated through court actions) and then you procecute in criminal court the individuals responsible for making an illegal request happen.
Without this immunity bill I am sure that is exactly what will happen. With it, none of it will. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to amigo_boy
- AT&T knowingly and willingly broke the law
- Civil court is part of the legal system, despite your protests and attempt to discredit it
- Comparing Bush's actions to those of Lincoln and Roosevelt is both impossible and insulting. |
|
