Slashdot Mirror
Judges Challenge IP Wiretap Rules
WebHostingGuy writes to mention an MSNBC article on an appeals panel harshly challenging the Bush administration's wiretap policies. New rules from the FCC would make it easier for police and FBI agents to wiretap IP-based phone conversations. From the article: "At [one] point in the hearing, Edwards told the FCC's lawyer that his arguments were 'gobbledygook' and 'nonsense.' The court's decision was expected within several months. In an unrelated case last year affecting digital television, two of the same three judges determined the FCC had significantly exceeded its authority and threw out new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices in new video devices. Lewis was also the losing lawyer in that case, and Edwards also was impassioned then in his criticisms of the FCC."
This is a truly maverick word, not only because it is surprisingly modern and also one whose genesis we can pin down to the day, but also because a maverick coined it --Maury Maverick, a Texan lawyer who was at various times a Democratic Congressman and mayor of San Antonio.
He used the word in the New York Times Magazine on 21 May 1944, while he was chairman of the US Smaller War Plants Committee in Congress, as part of a complaint against the obscure language used by his colleagues. His inspiration, he said, was the turkey, "always gobbledy gobbling and strutting with ludicrous pomposity". The word met a clear need and quickly became part of the language. It is sometimes abbreviated slightly to gobbledygoo.
don't worry, this will just be a temporary confusion. i'm sure congress will be happy to pass some very broad legislation, and the president will be very happy to sign it. problem solved.
They had so much to live for, but now they're all about to die soon in mysterious accidents. Let's hope the widows receive hams or something.
why do you hate America?
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
You know, he's a damn activist judge who's putting pesky rights and fruity ideals in the way of keeping the nation safe for obese children and their fear-stricken parents.
Blar.
an appeals panel harshly challenging the Bush administration's wiretap policies
Well, woopty freakin doo! Get in line with all the rest of the "harsh challengers to the Bush administration". But, when it comes down to the wire the administration will mandate it to "save us from terrorists", invoke executive privilege, or send the detractors to Gitmo for suspicion of "wrong thinking".
AYVABTU - All your VoIP are belong to the U.S. get use to it!
The lawyer was just working off of poor intelligence
Jon Stewart: Tonight, our focus is on Television! Today, the FCC wanted to impose the same decency standards that apply to broadcast television as they do to cable.
[audience boos]
Jon Stewart: To which many people said, "Uh, f*ck that guy!".
(Yes, the "*" is added for irony.)
Developers: We can use your help.
So, the problem I see in corporations a lot is that there are very few true problem solvers in positions of influence.
This is a great example. Why make the ISPs ("providers of broadband internet service" in TFA) comply with wiretap laws? Why make universities retrofit their data networks?
Ok, so the FCC wants wiretapping to be possible. Here's a novel idea: Make the companies that write the software for VoIP be wiretap-compliant. Write a special wiretap program. Give it to the government. Or, write an interface and let the government access it with a warrant, whatever (please don't critique the privacy issues here, that's not my point).
The point is -- the FCC wants to do something. They have a problem that needs to be solved. Their "solution" is retarded. There are no true problem solvers here.
Sony ha
I'm sure FBI technicians will be able to 'discover' some on the Judge's computer if they confiscate it and examine the hard drive at an undisclosed location. They have always managed to do so in the past.
> Actually, wait for ad hominem attacks on Edward
>
>You know, he's a damn activist judge who's putting pesky rights and fruity ideals in the way of keeping the nation safe for obese children and their fear-stricken parents.
Edwards oldthinker! Edwards unbellyfeel Amsoc! E
(Slashdotter Tackhead know whichside buttertoast, is plusgood duckspeaker, learn duckspeak doubleplusfastwise in freedomcamp!)
I 3 Judge Edwards!
RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
What is the DoJ, a government agency, doing lobbying anyone over anything?
AFAIK, their remit is to enforce the law by prosecuting criminals. That's it. Enforce the law as it stands.
Not attempt to make it or influence its makers.
I for one found this informative. The summary and article use the terms gobbledygook. Sure, it's not entirely on topic, but I find the etymology interesting, and a case can be made that it is on topic, as it was a politician who originally invented the phrase.
If you really must mod someone offtopic, go ahead and mod me down. I've got karma to burn.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
strike again!
"Laws? We don't need no stinking laws!"
c les/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/
Check out the article below on why GWB has not vetoed a SINGLE bill in his 6 years of presidency.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
The answer: "why bother when we can just ignore them...."
I appreciate justices who understand their job is to restrain the Federal government from trampling the rights of the individual, and in this case it looks like they're doing their job. Kudos and positive feedback.
I don't know if just restraining is enough anymore. When someone breaks a law, they can go to jail or pay a hefty fine. Why is it that Congress and the President can break their oath to uphold the Constitution's restrictions on their power and there is no real penalty?
Maybe it is time to penalize repeat offenders who vote for and pass (and don't veto) for unconstitutional laws. The voting booth is not enough to prevent future intrusions. A judge can sentence me to jail for breaking my oath to follow the law, the same should be true for those creating the laws.
The FCC's business is making sure transmission equipment meets its technical specifications, doesn't interfere with other transmission equipment and that communication is not interrupted or tampered with.
So where does that snooping come in? I can't see it in their profile.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
FTA:
"The FCC asserted that providers of high-speed Internet services should be covered under the 1994 law because their voice-transmission services can be considered separately from information services. "Congress intended to cover services (in the 1994 law) that were functionally equivalent" to traditional telephones, Lewis said during the hearing in U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia."
Is it me or haven't the administration and the DoJ gone to great lengths previously to classify internet communications as an information service to lower the bar for invading privacy? Now they are reversing this trend and attempting to classify digitized communication (which would seemingly be an information service previously) as falling under the voice provisions of CALEA to invade privacy?
This seems rather like they are trying to split legal hairs slot in activity whereever they can in existing law... Strange not to pass a new law, considering the same people control all branches of government...
http://www.optonline.net/Cservice/Article?CID=type %3Dreg%26channel%3D68%26article%3D1993853
optimum online has a clause in its terms of service that the internet and the phone service are for entertianment purposes only. So it makes me wonder if this law does happen to pass, does that require all the phone services including the ones for entertianment. regular Land line phones are considered critial utilities. wire taps for that make sense but not the VOIP for entertianment
Edwards told the FCC's lawyer that his arguments were 'gobbledygook' and 'nonsense.'
Not "jibberjabber" and "poopycock"?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
That is absolutely astonishing and appalling. I had never heard of this until now, and I can't believe what I just read. Apparently the current executive branch believes that it has power superceding any law (except the constitution) that could in any way hinder, slow, or maybe just make not as fun the "War on Terrorism".
I say the white house needs some US Government 101. They are overstepping their bounds by quite a bit. Such blatant disregard for the law is usually only seen in rapists and murderers. Even in fictional books about oppressive governments, the government at least adjusts the law to support its actions. This administration just accepts any law proposed, and then later says that the constitution gives it the right to ignore it in any circumstance it deems "special".
Never miss an opportunity to use "double plus ungood".
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Strong Open Source encryption on VOIP connections will end the tendencies
of governments to snoop on their citizens phone conversations.It would be much easier to listen in on the unencrypted audio with parabolic microphones and a REAL warrant.
Can you hear me now , Skype?
As nice and reasonable as the judges could be, they can do nothing about addressing the root problem of this case: The Republican dominance of our Democracy.
Here is what is wrong:
You are absolutely correct. Remember that:
1) The House is controlled by the Republicans
2) The Senate is controlled by the Republicans
3) The White House is controlled by the Republicans
4) The Supreme Court is now controlled by the Republicans
As a result Democrats have no legislative power, no subpoena power, no power to hold hearings, no swearing in the witnesses, no impeachment stick to protect the Constitution.
Hence you have the NSA spying, wiretaps, "sneak and peak" PATRIOT ACTism
I hope you will remember that come November elections by both voting, AND donating $$$. A little money can go a long way here
This is only supposed to apply in the specific case that the law is unconstitutional.
Cannot link to the Globe's article, so here is its mention in NYT:h tml?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/opinion/05fri1.
FT(linked)FA:Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.
The FCC is the new FEMA.
When they do the wrong thing, hundreds of comments! When they do the right thing, they dont say anything. How about some positive reinforcement here? I for one applaud their decision and hope others stand up for freedom.
No, I'm not making a sarcastic comparison with the 2nd Amendment here. I'm deadly earnest. Cryptography and guns are both useful means for citizens to preserve their freedoms.
The government recognized that, too. Which is why the export of cryptographic software from the US was essentially banned for decades - crippling the US crypto software industry - by defining crypto to be "arms" and applying the same laws as were used to suppress the export of guns.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
See also:
It's called impeachment, it's in the hands of the citizens and not the courts, and should be. Just be grateful we still have Marbury vs. Madison.
You teabag Judge Edwards?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What about all the time and money lost getting the decision up to the supreme court and getting them to actually declare it unconstutional ? What about people prosecuted with this new law and declared guilty. Will they automatically have their decsions reversed and given complete pardons for the crime ?
I'm not sure what you are asking.
If you are convicted of an offence which turns out to be of no force or effect, then your conviction must be overturned.
You dont need a pardon, because you were never guilty of anything in the first place.
The fact that you didn't challenge the law yourself doesn't change the fact of whether or not the law had any force or effect. You merely chose not to dispute that point.
You aren't guilty of anything unless you violate a law which is in effect at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
However, I would in fact argue that yes. The State should compensate you. The state should not pass unconstitutional laws, and the state is to blaim for doing so. Not everyone has the means to challenge unconstitutional laws. But we would all sleep more easily knowing that if someday our rights are trampled we will be compensated (even if it is only after someone else finally proves it).
We would all look to our lawmakers and demand more diligence in their law making if we knew that our own taxes would be wasted to compensate the victims of state oppression.
So.. if some current state administration doesn't like abortion (right now) for example.... it should look EXTREMELY carefully at the constitution, and the jurisprudence before outlawing it again, and trying to put women in jail for having abortions.. the state could very well open itself up to huge liability if it turned out that all those women had the legal right and the state destroyed their lives without the right of law.
This is particularily important now, since some states are already going ahead and banning abortions all over again even though the issue has been decided and the law is known.
The state should not simply go ahead and outlaw something and throw people in jail on the basis that "at the end of the day it was all done in good faith so we wont need to compensate our victims anyway". This happened in the earlier 1/2 of the last century and millions died and, even in north america forfeited their property, all in the name of unconstitutional laws.
I spend too much time dreaming of a Just society..
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.