Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category Bill Won't Give Telcos Wiretap Suit Immunity
The 'RESTORE' act is created...
(old news - 08:51AM Wednesday Oct 10 2007)
tags: telco · security · privacy · AT&T DSL Service · Verizon Online DSL
The major phone companies recently launched an all-out lobbying blitzkrieg in DC in the hopes of getting retroactive and future immunity from lawsuits alleging the carriers handed over private data to the NSA without a court order. The FCC has subsequently stated they won't investigate the telcos, but new reform laws being drafted in the House wouldn't give them the immunity they're after:
The Responsible Electronic Surveillance That Is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007 (also known as the Restore Act) would require a court order for any such surveillance of U.S. residents. Agencies such as the National Security Agency and Department of Justice would have to appear before a special body known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court when seeking warrants to engage in electronic surveillance.
The bill's goal is to ensure there's some kind of system of checks and balances in place while still making warrants easy to come by. Telcos will be given immunity if they were responding to court orders. However, if you've watched the effectiveness of the phone industry lobbying machine, you should probably know this bill could have a very short lifespan.

Related:
  1. Thursday Morning Links
  2. Thursday Evening Links
  3. Friday Evening Links
  4. Monday Evening Links
  5. Wednesday Evening Links
  6. Friday Evening Links
  7. Wednesday Evening Links
  8. Verizon Named Most Trusted Company With Your Privacy. Really?
Forums » Bill Won't Give Telcos Wiretap Suit Immunity
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

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

Punish the Snitchers

Such a bill removes any incentive for the phone companies, or any other communications company, to actively cooperate with government at any level for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

Yauch

join:2005-06-24

Re: Punish the Snitchers

I would just assume that a court order would be sufficent incentive.

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

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Yauch See Profile :

I would just assume that a court order would be sufficent incentive.
It would be... but if the legal climate exists in which phone companies will be punished for cooperating with law enforcement, they will fight such orders to the hilt.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
KraziJoe

join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
·Comcast

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by pnh102 See Profile :

said by Yauch See Profile :

I would just assume that a court order would be sufficent incentive.
It would be... but if the legal climate exists in which phone companies will be punished for cooperating with law enforcement, they will fight such orders to the hilt.
That's just absurd. The talk of lawsuits is because the Telco's just handed over the information without a Court Order.

The FBI/NSA just showed up and said gimme information and they did. THAT is the problem and that is why the people are suing...

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

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by KraziJoe See Profile :

The FBI/NSA just showed up and said gimme information and they did. THAT is the problem and that is why the people are suing...
The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

CrazyFingers

join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

Re: Punish the Snitchers

Or when it was determined that their actions were...you know...
Illegal.

I think you'll agree that this is the main problem in America today, we have all these "laws" that just get in the way of law enforcement. If only we could remove all these so-called "laws" that provide "protection" to our citizen's "civil rights", it would be so much easier to protect the people of the United States. After all, America was founded on the ideals of "complete safety from any bad thing", and if you read your constitution, you'll see that your personal safety is guaranteed 100% of the time under every possible circumstance. I still don't understand where all these smelly hippies get this whacko idea that they have "rights", I've looked all over the constitution and I don't see that anywhere.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage


4 edits

Uhm HELLO??? McFly???

I see that you support the police state, where our freedoms are flushed down the toilet for 'convenience'. Despite the bu**shit you've been told (and you apparently took-hook, line and sinker!), this has nothing to do with fighting terrorism! There are plenty of ways for law enforcement to get whatever they want or need. This is simply a way for them to be able to do "fishing expeditions". See, to keep the govt. from infringing on the rights of its citizens, there are safeguards in place to protect us. Law enforcement needs to go to court and convince a judge that any intrusion into the private life of its law abiding citizens is outweighed by the public benefits of doing so. It's not a complicted thing to do, but it IS an important check. This system has served us well through the centuries, including MANY wars! Now, you and your ilk seem Hell bent on flushing our protected rights and freedoms down the toilet! Maybe you are so paranoid that you need the govt. to 'protect' you, but unlike you, I believe that the average citizen needs protection from govt. intrusions more then we need protection from terrorists.

See, the way our political system works best is when the citizens have a healthy DISTRUST of the govt. WE are the fourth branch of the government-it's up to us the citizens to keep corruption in check! Your way of blind: "yup, yup, yup" obediance puts us on a slippery slope towards fascism!

Look, if you're SO concerned about your "personal safety" then get your state and city to put more cops on the streets of our cities and towns. You're MUCH MORE LIKELY to be injured or killed by a robber, gang member or drunk driver then a terrorist. Police walking the beat in our neighborhoods are FAR MORE EFFECTIVE in preventing crime then some big computer bugging all our phone calls and emails is!

CrazyFingers

join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

Re: Uhm HELLO??? McFly???

Settle down there sparky.

Take a deep breath.

Now, click here: »dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Now, go back and read it again.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...

tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
He was poking fun at it all.. I got it.. so calm down and don't forget to pass.. "puff puff pass" you know..
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA

Gotcha!

disc

join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC

Re: Punish the Snitchers

Maybe, but if you start from the premise that terrorists hate us for our freedoms - the inverse must also be true, the terrorists love us for our laws. Obviously our founding fathers couldn't anticipate this, but fortunately our fearless leaders have recognized that by dispensing with some laws, they're removing the succor and solace they provide to the terrorists. I can only imagine how much this has put the terrorists into a shambles. Even more so since by dispensing with some laws, the Bush administration is in essence increasing freedoms, thereby taunting the terrorists with the very thing they hate. The nation terrorized becomes the provocatuer - take that you terrorists!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest

I agree. We should protect you from everyone and yourself too.

So effective immediatly, we're going to lock you up in a small room with no windows or connection to the outside world. We'll hold you there forever. You'll be safe and protected never have to worry about being harmed by anyone ever again!

Enjoy!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
chuckkk

join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA
·Cox HSI

On the contrary, history shows that the US government and many others for that matter, chafe under the various laws that actually protect citizens from unwarranted intrusion into private matters and affairs.

At one time, during the cold war, mainly before satellites carried most overseas calls, EVERY overseas phone call was recorded/monitored. This became increasingly impossible (using then existing methods) when the satellites came on line and the number of calls increased by orders of magnitude. (~ 1980)

The government prefers to interpret laws and constitutional rights in favor of the government, rather than the citizen.
After all, such things complicate the ability to "govern".

I spent several years in Germany in the late 70's. The older germans had an almost slavish response/relationship with the government. Perhaps as a result of surviving both the imperial and nazi governments of the past.

Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
·Teleblend
·ViaTalk

said by pnh102 See Profile :

The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks.
Regardless of how long they've been doing it, it's still illegal. The constitution is the highest law of this country. Once we turn it into a guideline, there is no longer a basis for our government. It's called a slippery slope...
NewMariner

join:2005-06-24

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Cogdis See Profile :

said by pnh102 See Profile :

The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks.
Regardless of how long they've been doing it, it's still illegal. The constitution is the highest law of this country. Once we turn it into a guideline, there is no longer a basis for our government. It's called a slippery slope...
I believe it is a guideline, or else we wouldnt have amendments...
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
·Teleblend
·ViaTalk

Re: Punish the Snitchers

Constitution: fundamental law: law determining the fundamental political principles of a government.

If the constitution is amended, that amendment becomes LAW.
Nobody can choose which laws they want to follow. Not even the president.
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Cogdis See Profile :

If the constitution is amended, that amendment becomes LAW.
Nobody can choose which laws they want to follow. Not even the president.
Unless he chooses that option in the signing statement.

fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink

Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
said by pnh102 See Profile :

The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks.
The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when they learned it was happening.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts

join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
·Verizon FIOS

said by pnh102 See Profile :

said by KraziJoe See Profile :

The FBI/NSA just showed up and said gimme information and they did. THAT is the problem and that is why the people are suing...
The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks.
You sit there and defend practices that Kim Jong Il would be proud of. And once again we are supposed to rely on your baseless assertions: all is well: Bush knows what he is doing: "they" hate our freedom: Rush is right: Fox News is the only real news.. "war is peace", "freedom is slavery"; "ignorance is knowledge" and on and on and on it goes. Baseless assertion after baseless assertion...

YAWN
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.


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

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Cuchulainn See Profile :

Bush knows what he is doing:
And you only prove that I am correct. If it was someone other than Bush doing this, then we'd not hear anything about it.

I always yawn when I hear the anti-USA left whine about civil rights. It is plainly clear that they're in the tank with the enemy in this war, and they will pull any sort of stunt they can over here to help the enemy win. Whining about this BS is just another feather in their cap.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts

join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
·Verizon FIOS

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by pnh102 See Profile :

said by Cuchulainn See Profile :

Bush knows what he is doing:
And you only prove that I am correct. If it was someone other than Bush doing this, then we'd not hear anything about it.

I always yawn when I hear the anti-USA left whine about civil rights. It is plainly clear that they're in the tank with the enemy in this war, and they will pull any sort of stunt they can over here to help the enemy win. Whining about this BS is just another feather in their cap.
Allow me to retort:

Your utterly baseless assertion was that Bush is right. Not mine.

I always yawn then I hear the xenophobic, jingoistic "proud-patriot since 9/11/01" right whine about how we shouldn't worry when the liberties enshrined in the First, Fourth and Eight Amendments (to name but a few) are trampled time and time and time again. Trampled by an utterly incompetent administration that can't even figure out who the "enemy" is. It's clear that they do not have the first idea about the meaning of the Constitution they claim to defend (well, the anachronistic Second Amendment anyway). Resorting to regurgitated Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly platitudes is the extent of their mental dexterity.

PS - I've just spent eight of the last ten years abroad serving my country. Just what exactly is "anti-USA" about that???
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.


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

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Cuchulainn See Profile :

PS - I've just spent eight of the last ten years abroad serving my country. Just what exactly is "anti-USA" about that???
Then what are you complaining about? You should be happy the Bush administration is keeping the military in business.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts

join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
·Verizon FIOS

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by pnh102 See Profile :

said by Cuchulainn See Profile :

PS - I've just spent eight of the last ten years abroad serving my country. Just what exactly is "anti-USA" about that???
Then what are you complaining about? You should be happy the Bush administration is keeping the military in business.
I'm not military. Plenty of other folks serve their country abroad. GIANT
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.

Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
·Teleblend
·ViaTalk

said by pnh102 See Profile :

said by Cuchulainn See Profile :

Bush knows what he is doing:
And you only prove that I am correct. If it was someone other than Bush doing this, then we'd not hear anything about it.

I always yawn when I hear the anti-USA left whine about civil rights. It is plainly clear that they're in the tank with the enemy in this war, and they will pull any sort of stunt they can over here to help the enemy win. Whining about this BS is just another feather in their cap.
So you're saying that if it was anybody else that violated our civil rights nobody would care

Regardless of who is listening, giving that kind of power to a small group of people opens the door to corruption. Do you even realize the kind of profitable information that can be obtained through this system? Eventually, there WILL be somebody who can't resist that temptation.

How much are NSA agents paid anyway?

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

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Cogdis See Profile :

So you're saying that if it was anybody else that violated our civil rights nobody would care
I don't believe our rights have been violated. Where are all the anti-Bush people being jailed en masse? Where are all the press restrictions? Where are all the private gun confiscations? Surely if we were not free, some government commissar would have shut this website down by now?

My main concern is that if we discourage private companies from cooperating with law enforcement, then we end up creating another means by which those who would wish us harm would be able to act out on their plans. I know we won't ever be 100% safe, but if we can cut off one means by which bad things could happen, why not do it?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
·Teleblend
·ViaTalk


1 edit

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by pnh102 See Profile :

why not do it?
Did you read my post? Unrestricted access given to a group that is not checked can't be allowed. The temptation to profit, blackmail or otherwise abuse this power is too great not to be checked
said by pnh102 See Profile :

I don't believe our rights have been violated.
You don't think that the fourth amendment has been violated?

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

Re: Punish the Snitchers

said by Cogdis See Profile :

Did you read my post? Unrestricted access given to a group that is not checked can't be allowed. The temptation to profit, blackmail or otherwise abuse this power is too great not to be checked
I'm not disputing this. I agree completely with you here.
said by Cogdis See Profile :

You don't think that the fourth amendment has been violated?
In what specific case? Court cases are still thrown out to this day because of 4th Amendment concerns. When I hear about these situations... my first thought is... why didn't the cops get the warrant?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

annon666

@pacbell.net

Wow what world do you live in? The Government cooperation by these Telcos was purely profit driven. Ever heard the saying "you wash my back and I'll wash yours". These people NEED to be sued and quit trading there customers privacy because of greed! If the government needs a wiretap they can do it the legal way. Way too much abuses by our own government against its own people. It has to stop! BTW the FCC makes me sick.

said by pnh102 See Profile :

Such a bill removes any incentive for the phone companies, or any other communications company, to actively cooperate with government at any level for legitimate law enforcement purposes.

CrazyFingers

join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

Quite sensible, citizen

"The Responsible Electronic Surveillance That Is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007"

This is an addition to the "Serious Protection of Youth" act of 2005, which was an addition to the "Distributed Universal Management Bureaucracy" initiative of 2003.
As we all know, both of these laws would never be possible without the "Justice, Equality, and Safety Update System" program that was put into place in early 2001.

I for one am glad our government has the interests of its citizens at the top of its priority list. This is why I am urging my congressman to support the "Socially Conservative Reduced Employment Withholding Mission for Everyone" act of 2007.
You should too!
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...

paulhaskew
Unoffical Dominos Spokesman

join:2002-01-10
Vancouver, WA
clubs:

Re: Quite sensible, citizen

LOL!!! Love the names...

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

Of course... these bills were opposed by groups including the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

»news.google.com/news?sourceid=na···N&tab=wn
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

CrazyFingers

join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

Re: Quite sensible, citizen

Don't joke about the MILF. They are known to employ highly trained cougars to hunt down dissidents and eat them alive.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...
rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05

And for those who didn't catch it..

said by CrazyFingers See Profile :

"The Responsible Electronic Surveillance That Is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007"
R.E.S.T.O.R.E. ???

said by CrazyFingers See Profile :

This is an addition to the "Serious Protection of Youth" act of 2005
S.P.Y.

said by CrazyFingers See Profile :

which was an addition to the "Distributed Universal Management Bureaucracy" initiative of 2003.
D.U.M.B.

said by CrazyFingers See Profile :

As we all know, both of these laws would never be possible without the "Justice, Equality, and Safety Update System" program that was put into place in early 2001.
J.E.S.U.S.

said by CrazyFingers See Profile :

I for one am glad our government has the interests of its citizens at the top of its priority list. This is why I am urging my congressman to support the "Socially Conservative Reduced Employment Withholding Mission for Everyone" act of 2007.
You should too!
S.C.R.E.W. M.E.

Thanks, CrazyFingers, for the laugh!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
ROFL!

Love the Acronyms!

Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept

join:2004-06-26

Wow

sad commentary when a story like this receives far less attention than, say, "the mac store is down" forum links. I think there's a lesson or something here . . .
--

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest

retroactive immunity?


it's unbelievable that telcos are pushing for retroactive immunity. to me, that they are lobbying for it is a straightforward admission of guilt.

add to that the fact that we have to introduce a bill to enforce the law that has been in place for YEARS and it is clear that telcos are guilty. just pay the fine and go bankrupt. you deserve it for, i don't know, voilating the constitution and spying on U.S. citizens without just cause.
jester121

join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

Re: retroactive immunity?

They're lobbying for immunity from lawsuits, not criminal prosecution.

Coming next from broadbandreports.com "news" department -- customers complain about higher costs of internet service due to all the settlements that the telcos had to pay.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest

Re: retroactive immunity?

they are lobbying for immunity for breaking multiple laws and illegally spying on American citizens.

for breaking the law on such a massive scale (millions and millions of people; every customer of the telcos plus customers that are routed through their system) these companies must be dissolved.

the telcos actions are on such a scale that dissolving them (or at least their responsibility, administration, and ownership of the system) is the only acceptable solution.
jester121

join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk

Re: retroactive immunity?

said by morbo See Profile :

the telcos actions are on such a scale that dissolving them (or at least their responsibility, administration, and ownership of the system) is the only acceptable solution.
LOL yeah, and while we're at it let's reconvene a war crimes tribunal and convict them of crimes against humanity.

(Note -- as much as it scares me to have to say this, I'm being sarcastic here. However, I fully expect some of the BBR zealots to think this is a good idea.)

DHRacer
Fire Survivor

join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA

More goes into the name

Than the language of the actual bill.

Who spends a few hours coming up with some stupid catchy name for something that sounds good until you read it? They probably put more effort into the name than the language, too.
Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale

join:2003-09-29

Not a surprise..

Both AT&T and the President/Executive branch had all the tools necessary to fight "terrorism", before, with checks and balances, and I'd even argue those checks and balances were very light-hearted at that.

Even so, they all still managed to severely break the law, somehow are immune from prosecution, and now want the laws they broke to become legal?

"I didn't break the law, but hey, I won't sign this bill until you make what I did legal".

No thanks. I'll take checks and balances, not giving an increasingly corrupt government even more tools at it's disposal to target citizens as if they were terrorists.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest

Ah, much better.

See, this is something I can get get behind because it's Constitutional.

If you have a warrant, then the turning over the data is legal. This means a law enforcement agency has a reason to suspect you, can quickly get a warrant, and the Telco can comply and not be liable because they've done nothing wrong.

The idea that everyone's personal information and data should be just turned over wholesale with no oversight is a violation of due process and of people's rights.

This is an improvement.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

taxpro

join:2001-09-03
Hopkins, MN

Bush speaks! - (Like a Telco lackey)

Telecom immunity must be preserved in pending bill, Bush says
»www.startribune.com/10228/story/1475826.html
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Re: Bush speaks! - (Like a Telco lackey)


I think I hate that man.

djm61
Out of Iraq NOW

join:2001-06-20
Simi Valley, CA
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable

Re: Bush speaks! - (Like a Telco lackey)

said by Cogdis See Profile :


I think I hate that man.
I KNOW I do!
--
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand.
bluedragon

join:2000-05-09
Hutchinson, KS

Telco immunity from lawsuits

Even if the telcos get sued and lose, wouldn't the trial lawyers get all the money?
jester121

join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk

If anyone actually read the legislation....

Can anyone clarify if the actual text of the law says "U.S. residents" or "U.S. citizens" (or even "LEGAL U.S. residents")? There is a major distinction to be made there, and I'd hope we're not bestowing yet another slew of legal rights on individuals who are here illegally.

FLengineer
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL

Re: If anyone actually read the legislation....

Is it possible to get service from a telco without being legal and having a SSN?

Simba7

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT


2 edits

Nail 'em..

I honestly think the Telco's should get nailed. They knowingly pulled this and are trying to weasel their way out of it.

..as for "Giving the Telcom your information JUST to get a phone line", you pretty much HAVE to give that information. Retarded, I know.

..Now for Internet access, you can just hop around with a WiFi card and NetStumbler/Kismet. You can't really do that with a phone without getting busted.

Honestly, I dislike my "Commander and Chief", but I don't have to worry about that anymore. One main reason I left the Navy.
Forums » Bill Won't Give Telcos Wiretap Suit Immunity


Wednesday, 11-Nov 00:35:35 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole