Slashdot Mirror
Wiretap Ruling Threatens Telecoms
ches_grin writes "Yesterday's ruling on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems. The judge's decision clearly dismissed out of hand the arguments of the telecoms, saying that the protections due journalists and lawyers was a clear matter of the public's best interests." From the article: "Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore. 'Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement,' says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. 'There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective.'"
What a novel concept!
Let's try this: Let's conspire with a telecom provider to monitor government employee's communications and try to figure out what the government is thinking and what they're doing. Then, we'll blow the story all over the media and claim immunity based on something we just made up. We can claim that we were just making sure the federal government wasn't doing anything wrong and that if they weren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to worry or press charges. I wonder if the telecom provider and those involved would be prosecuted.
Oh, and we'll use a recent event to justify our actions. Like the war in Iraq. Yeah, uh, we need to make sure no one in the government is conspiring to start another war based on false information. That's it, that's why we need to monitor your communications.
If the government is taking actions like these that are illegal for us to take ourselves, it's starts to sound less like we're on equal footing with the government and more like the government is demanding we "do what they say not what they do." Does anyone else remember back in the day when the United States was a government of the people, by the people and for the people? None of these recent NSA actions sound "for" the people. More like "against" with what should be serious legal repercussions. What the hell ever happened to a weak federal government with strong local governments? That was the basic idea for our government I thought. Instead we have some backwards beltway insiders pushing everyone around while my local county and city governments try to figure out what the hell "PC Load Letter" means.
I say we jail those responsible (government directors and telecom CEOs who oversaw it) just as any citizen who tried the same thing would be jailed.
My work here is dung.
Um, just curious. What about the protections due to us average citizens, or don't we count anymore?
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Until the Republican-slanted Supreme Court overrules that brave federal judge with a party-line vote, new guy Alito being the tiebreaker. This is a victory, but do not be mistaken, it is a hollow one.
Once again, an alliance of big business and government conspires to strange the last remnants of freedom on the internet. The end of free expression is night. In a few years...
Oh, hold on a minute.
Did we win this one!?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I agree someone needs to be held accountable. But it should be the government. No corporation can resist governmental pressure. Is this just the government trying to place blame elsewhere to protect itself?
"Well, you LET me do it! It's your fault!"
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
"damned if you do, damned if you don't"
Help the feds and get your but sued off by your customers, or dont help the feds and run the risk of pissing off the powers that be. I can understand how the telco's are in a serious pickle over this, since both sides will start screaming "do what we say, the law is on our side"
While I feel the wiretapping is illegal, suing the companies that helped the government I feel is bad practice. These companies are in a bad position both ways. First you got a governing body to tell you to do something or face the consequences. You can be noble and such and be placed in jail and/or pay for lawyers to defend you, or just do what they say because they tell you it for national security and you have to assume that it is legal.
It is similar to a situation where a policeman stops you and tells you to run that stop sign so they can give you a ticket or they will arrest you, on some charge like failure to cooperate with an officer. So what do you do, just get and pay the ticket because getting arrested is much more of a hassle and fighting it will take more of your time (lost work etc...) or stand up for what is right and get arrested and fight it, even though you will loose days or weeks of work costing you more then what the ticket would bring.
What will probably happen is these companies will in turn sue the NSA, for their damages, such as the smart thing would do is fight the traffic ticket and also sue for unlawful conduct by the police, and get some extra for your expenses.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I mean they have to face the dual pressure of an American public who would view them as "hating America" for going against the NSA as well as the pressure of a federal investigating agency demanding the tapes.
Good. They deserve some socio-legal proctology for betraying their paying customers to the government, without even a hint of protest against an action that is illegal, against all precident, and clearly unconstitutional.
Makes you wonder how often they allow wiretapping without a warrant, doesn't it? Clearly they had no problem with it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
So, the telecoms are gonna be held culpeable.
What about Bush's administration?Are they going to get something even equal to a wristslap.
As much as I like the idea of blase corporations getting reamed in the hilt..
punishing one party(which is the subservient one) while the main offender(bush) is still scott free.. what exactly is the message that's going to be sent to corporations and business.
Unsure of their options.. the one's they'll take is quite likely the ones that are detrimental to people.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA.
Yeah, but when has the "I was just following orders" defense ever worked, really?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
When there was freedom of speech, privacy, liberty in U.S. ?
Well thats a relief.
Read radical news here
It's only a matter of time before the Supreme court reverses the decision. If the Supreme court supports the decision then the program will continue in secret. No news here, move along.
Fuck 'em.
Apologies for the tin foil hat moment... I was wondering that myself, but from a more universal perspective, how do we as a society strike down this kind of thing? This is a victory for privacy, but there's no way the administration will just stop--it will appeal, or claim executive privilege, or just move the whole thing underground away from prying eyes. Even if we soundly boot the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008, does anyone expect the Democrats to do differently? How can we protect our rights to privacy in a day and age where the individual is so thoroughly marginalized?
There was burglary, theft, and perjury, not to mention numerous other items uncovered by Archibald Cox (and of course, others).
Oh yeah, and there were about 28,000 GIs killed in Viet Nam, not to mention about a quarter of a million Vietnamese.
I suppose those dead people didn't count in the indictments... nor the resignation of Spiro Agnew for tax fraud-- his vice president.
Now, between Bush Jr and Sr, we have about 600,000 Iraqis dead, 3,500+ of our troops.
So there's wiretapping incideous habeas corpus violations, and heavens knows what else in the Bush administration.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Let's be serious here, this won't stand its ground. As long as the judges aren't independent from the rest of the governmental body, they will be at the governments beck and call. At the very least, this will be squished once it touches the supreme court.
I'll try to keep an eye on this to find out just how long it takes until that matter is "settled" (read: Drowned in enough red tape to be grinding to a halt), and at what body it will perish. Because if this matter is turned down and not even investigated, as I expect, the separation of powers in the US is dead. When the executive branch can do what it wants without being held in check by the supreme court, the transformation to a police state is finished.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the protections due [citizens] was a clear matter of the public's best interests.
Here you have it: freedom > security.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
To what extent are the service providers expected to know what the NSA is and is not allowed to do? If the NSA comes in and says you must do something, how much right do you have in that situation to say "no", or "let our lawyers approve this first"? With the Patriot Act in place and the fact that no one has ever really read what it actually says, how is anyone expected to stand up and tell the NSA to bugger off, that's unconstitutional? But these companies are not even the victims I'm concerned about.
What about those victims who were wrongly spied on? Those are the ones I'm afraid will end up paying for all this. If the service providers are sued for damages, where does that money come from? Either increased fees to consumers (who are the real victims), or the companies sue the government for some sort of wrongful representation of what the legality of the program was and NSA/Bush's rights to require them to comply and all that, and the government uses tax money to pay off their own legal losses, again going back to the consumers/victims.
Legally, we may have a win. Financially, we're all screwed, but I guess that's not really any different than any other day. Hopefully it at least gives companies reason to have a backbone and look into legal issues like that instead of just assuming NSA's requests are legit and immediately caving into that kind of intimidation, and possibly avoid a recurrence. But I won' tbe suprised if government in the future again will fool companies into unknowingly (in at least some cases) doing illegal things, or intimidating them into doing it anyway.
Ironically these people are members of the party that claims to champion a limited federal government that operates for not against the people. They campaigned on the very idea of shrinking government and reducing its invasiveness. They have reduced education and social spending (mostly through crippling unfunded mandates). They have left the science budget the same but selectively trimmed spending on some subjects e.g. Global Warming. But when it comes to spying on Americans and invading others no amount is too high and no law apparently can stand.
Not even Richard Nixon went around claiming that he was just "above the law because he says so" but apparently these people think that it is a valid legal principle.
This isn't flamebait, I'm being serious, the only other times that I can think of where anyone claimed such a thing (rule of law but my word is above all law) was the old Russian Tsars after Katherine the Great, and Adolf Hitler who had the "Furher's Princip". Again this isn't flamebait it is frightening.
What i wish would happen: SCOTUS also rules that it is illegal to spy on citizens and AT&T Baby Bells are held liable to pay $55 billion in damages. In addition the Prez is censured, the Rep party turns against Bush and "purges" him.
What would actually happen: Many possibilities:
1. King Bush declares Emergency, declares Martial law, imrpisons the Judge who ordered this. Congress and Senate support this, the Nov. election is postponed indefinitely until the "terrorist threat" is removed.
2. King Bush appeals to SCOTUS, Alito and Co. overrule the brave Judge, and declare the program legal retrospectively. Nov. elections turn up a surprise winner: Massive Republican majority with Deibold chief once again crowing that he delivered the "nation" to Bush. People are surprised, but accept the result. Slashdotters all state they voted against Bush, but somehow he gets 65% majority.
3. A BIG terrorist attack 5 to 10 days before election day results in a massive republican majority. They vote enmasse to enact a law that would NOT require FISA.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Is there any reason to think that the telcos went along cheerfully? If so, unleash the lawyers^Whounds. However, I can easily imagine them being subject to pressures I'd rather avoid.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The Democrats would be different in 2006, because there'd still be a Republican in the White House. The US historically does better when one party is not in complete control.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Congress can impeach and convict any judge for any political reason. They can claim Bush molested his daughters knowing full well he didn't and get rid of him. That's pretty much what almost happened to President Andrew Johnson. In Johnson's case Congress was polite enough to actually pass a law they knew Johnson would violate before impeaching him, but they could've gone after him for anything and convicted knowing he was innocent. Of course the framers would roll over in there graves if anyone tried that. BTW, there is no appeal from an impeachment conviction, short of starting a revolution or a political coup.
Now, assuming Congress is going to do things legally, I don't think you can impeach and convict a judge for the rulings he makes. You can convict a judge for treason, but you can't call a ruling "treason" and impeach for that. Well, you can but it wouldn't be what the framers intended.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Um, just curious. What about the protections due to us average citizens, or don't we count anymore?"
Well since bloggers are now considered journalists. Get blogging and you too can enjoy protection.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
clinton was impeached for lieing about a bj. now that bush has violated the rights of every person in gitmo, broken the law to spy on everyone, and in general ignored laws that displease him, can we impeach this pos now too?
the goverment is corrupt. we need to format and start over with a fresh install.
i support a death penalty for gov corruption / incompetance. all public servants should face 2x the penalty of a normal citizen. im tired of assholes who get elected just to increase their wealth.
-.no
We want companies to think twice before they jump just because the government says so.
Twinstiq, game news
To those who would say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", remember people are not perfect, and systems are not perfect. The cost of undoing all the "errors and mistakes" will be much higher to society and individuals than any good done by this driftnet.
Two words my friends, collateral damage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
Fair warning, pinko nonsense on slashdot is aiding the enemy. As such you are all infact "Terrorists". All of your IP's have been logged, and back traced. Your ISP's are on the phone right now handing over every shred of info they have on you, and your location. Your assets are being seized. The men in black suits are racing twords your homes and your places of employment as we speak. I for one welcome our new Neocon overlords, but kinda I do miss the days when the worst thing a President did was get a hummer. Who is that at the door, one sec.
They're in a bad position? Oh, the poor corporations! We, the people, have for generations had to fight and die to defend our freedoms, but the new "Corporate people" who demand all the rights of citizenship might get stuck paying a fine or something if they refuse to actively break the law! The horror! The unfairness of it all!
I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders. That way, it becomes a no brainer to say "No way!" the next time you are asked to betray the nation at the behest of a few power hungry elected officials or their minions.
That, or we could just give 'em a pass this time and hope that they've learned their lesson...
--MarkusQ
Yep!
It looks like most people already got used to Newspeak nowadays...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The nazis and some of the german people just complied and said they were following orders. It would have been nice if more people just opted out and declined to do wicked things they were told to do.
Not that this is the same, but the problem is the same. Apathy and blind compliance.
Don't they have lawyers to review the legality of their actions?
Or do they just blindly do what Bush tells them?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Even if (by some miracle) it isn't overturned, the President will just issue an executive order contravening it, or simply ignore it as he does with other laws or facts he finds distasteful. If a President can ignore the law without penalty (without fear or impeachment or being made impotent), it doesn't really matter what the judicial branch does.
If you are a company affected by this, you don't have any choices - the governemnt will tell you what to do, and you will get sued later for it. Of course you have lots of lawyers and you might win, or neuter the outcome sufficiently as to make it not a problem. If you attempt to disobey the government (and the government has no check), you probably won't have a business.
These telcos explicitly participated actively in surveillence that their lawyers should have told them was illegal. But what about CALEA in general? What about all the new VoIP surveillence? "Echelon", or whatever they call it now? If/when these surveillence programs are held accountable, if/when they are proven to violate the law and rights of Americans, what kind of liability will telcos, ISPs, and just nodes on the network hold just for compliance?
Should we offer users security from surveillence out of our obligation to ourselves for avoiding liability when the government abuses our cooperation? Or even just protecting ourselves from lawsuits which will fail but cost expenses/time, or just the ill will of the market? Qwest communications apparently did not cooperate with the NSA domestic spying program. Did they make the only good business decision of all their competitors?
--
make install -not war
Privacy is only for nutcases with kooky ideas, and miscreants trying to hide their activities. Do you really think that my fellow Alabamans care if you have phonesex and talk about a blowjob? Ok, there's a law against blowjobs here, but really, who's gonna arrest you? And so what if someone plays your blowjob talk in front of the whole world one day? That's the whole point of removing privacy for Americans; if you're too ashamed of what you do in secret being shouted on the mountaintops, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
As for our Government's privacy.... they need privacy. Unlike your fantasies of privacy, their privacy is in the interest of protecting us from terror. A Government shrouded in absolute secrecy and shielded from accountability, ruling over a completely transparent constituency, is the only way to assure our public safety.
I for one would rather sacrifice my freedoms than risk my safety.
This is Pat Riot, the voice of a safe, secure America!
[okay, you just know this is a parody, right?]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
According to wikipedia, companies do not have to give full and complete accounting of their records if it the president gives them permission in the name of national security.
"Companies are permitted by US securities law (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) to refrain from properly accounting for their use of assets in matters involving national security, when properly authorized by an agency or department head acting under authorization by the President. This legalese essentially means that companies can falsify their accounting reports and lie about their activities when the President decides that it is in the interests of national security to do so. President Bush issued a presidential memorandum on May 5, 2006 delegating authority to make such a designation to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, just as the NSA call database scandal appeared in the media." [Emphasis mine]
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Untill the Supreme Court rules on this, why do I keep forseeing someone in a Guy Fawkes mask and cape sometime in our countries future?
The primary function of the judiciaray is to interpret the law. They determine if a law is both constituional and if it conforms to other sources of law: statutes, case law, regulations, etc. In this case, the wiretaps have both constitutional (separation of powers, commander and chief) and other legal (FISA) implications.
Not to pick on you personally, but I really wish slashdot had a filter that I could set up so I wouldn't see any posts that contain the words "Gubmint" or "Prolly". I can handle a lot of silliness, but these grate on my last nerve for some reason.
Finding other idiots on
You know there are a lot of well-meaning people who end up getting the shaft when people in authority abuse power. The problem is that if you don't follow orders, you're likely to be arrested. Imagine being a soldier protesting orders on the grounds that they were unethical... in some countries, any such people were quickly removed from the gene pool. My fellow slashdotters, we in the U.S. live in a police state. If the police tell you to do something, you damn well better do it, or you're not going to see the sun shine for a long time after some court somewhere decides that you were told to commit an illegal act. And being, as you are, an "idiot citizen," the government doesn't afford you the right to judge right vs. wrong for yourself.
So you're damned it you don't (they'll arrest you right away if you refuse), and you're damned if you do (you'll be up on civil or criminal charges later when it's determined that you were asked to do an illegal thing). In this system, you can't win.
Mind you, companies like AT&T have a lot of lawyers and a lot of power. But even they can't refuse completely. If you refuse to do what the NSA says, they will find a judge to issue an order to close down your business a LOT quicker than you can find another judge to rule their orders illegal. Oh, and then there are the various appeals processes that draw it out, leaving you in legal limbo for years.
Up until the moment that your orders are found illegal, refusing to follow those orders is the only thing illegal.
Considering how most major corporations are giving politicians money hats every day to pass/support bills that will benefit their business, and considering the depth of corperate involvement in the US government these days, to argue that companies and/or individuals should not be liable for illegal activities involving collaboration with the US government would be giving these entities a free pass.
I do agree that under this practice the little guy could be hurt in the process, or that massive legal battles could ensue. But, rather than give corporate entities a free pass by letting these companies get away scott free, what really needs to happen is this slippery slope of liability needs to be precisely defined through law in order to prevent future instances like this as well as provide protections for people who were used by the government instead of collaborating with them.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Well, darn, that makes me mad. I think I'll just take my AT&T business elsewhere. Oh wait, we've gone back to 1980 and there is no elsewhere!
just do what they say because they tell you it for national security and you have to assume that it is legal.
We're not talking about (legally) defenceless individuals here. We're talking about telecom companies, who have legal departments that make law firms look like amateurs and government lobbying programs that trade senators and congresscritters like baseball cards.
In other words, they've got people who's job it is to not just assume that something related to their business (and I'm thinking wiretapping is somehow related to telecom) is legal.
They darn well knew it was illegal.
c.
Log in or piss off.
You know as well as me that the judge's decision will be overturned. There is absolutely no way that the American legal-political system, as it currently exists, could possibly agree, for an extended period of time, that there has been wrongdoing by both the executive and just about every telecom company. What's more, when the decision is overturned we'll be worse off than before because the legality of the status quo as of the day before yesterday will be enshrined as legal precedent and so the government will move on to push the boundaries even further.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
> The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore.
I believe it will set a precedent that only courts in the same district can't ignore; courts in other districts can ignore it, though they may choose to take it as a persuasive authority. Only precedents from the Supreme Court of the United States are binding on *all* lower courts.
davidh
and Sovereign Immunity.
You cannot (I, repeat, cannot) sue the government for monetary damages unless they say you can.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It'll probably be overturned, but this is because the EFF cherry picked the judged they wish to use and the next appeal will probably see that the ruling was poorly written and made little sense.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A stay on the verdict has already been issued, move along, appeal set for Sept 7th... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/18/D8JIS7J00 .html
From TFA: protections due journalists and lawyers .
So the moral of the story here is that if you want to be a terrorist, become a lawyer - because the government respects their rights over those of normal citizens.
But not on impeachment. Rather with sweeping legislation clearing the telcos of any civil and/or criminal liabilities. And in fact increasing the power of the telco monopolies while they are at it through a few well hidden amendments.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If any government branch came to me as such, I'd make a submission to Digg, Slashdot, etc... detailing what they wanted (and what they had wanted to give me in return), and then tell them to F-off! I'd probably disapear promptly, for having Utopia, The Communist Manefesto, and Walden on my nightstand... but I would have told them government to screw themselves.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
The media certainly aren't tearing them apart over this. In fact, the media has under-reported Qwest's opposition the same way a docile media would under-report claims that "the Emperor wears no clothes".
Your understanding of and apology for a secret program where the NSA and corporations conspired together to clearly deny citizens their rights granted under the constitution seems naive at best.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Shame on you people making pathetic excuses for a corporation. "Oohh, don't want to piss off the 'powers that be'!"
Spineless cowards, I thought you Americans were supposed to have some spunk?
Are we lumping Jr and Sr together now? That is really stupid considering the facts involved.
When you put this into perspective plain and simple the Telcos were wrong to go along w/ this. The Bush Administration came to them and said we want to tap your hubs. The first thing that should have come to mind for the telcos was is this legal. The second thing that should have come to mind is that they have an obligation to their customers FIRST. You know the people paying them for service? Third, they should have thought about the 4th amendment to the constitution and the first amendment on which their services rely heavily.
The fact is that they were completely complicit in these actions. They probably didn't even submit it to their lawyers or if they did their lawyers said well if anyone sues us we'll argue that we were told by the government, etc.
Remember they also aren't just tapping phones they are analyzing and filtering ALL of the data that passes through the ATT switches...IE EVERYONE!
This administration and the companies cooperating in warrantless eavesdropping are guilty of the biggest constitutional offense in US history...the baffling part is that they openly admit it as though it were legal and / or ok.
Impeachment NOW! Don't wait until the rest of the amendments have been violated.
Yes, Nixon did some very dirty things, like trying to steal democracy from the American people. But his administration did more good for the country then GWB has. Just a few of Nixons lasting accomplishments:
- Creation of the E.P.A.
- Ending engagement in Vietnam
- Opening China to diplomatic relations, including their induction as a UN member state
- Singning of the SALT treaty and the ABM treaty with the soviets
- Embracing and signing-off on the NASA STS program
- Elimination of the "Gold Standard" of US Currency allowing more natural currency flux
No matter what, you can't seperate Nixon from Watergate. But he isn't anywhere near the worst president we've had. And in a way, watergate helped America. A healthy distrust for government is a good thing.
This world would've been a much better place today had RFK not been shot. He would've ate Nixons lunch in a general election and the course of history would've been changed. I'm a big blue-stater but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
A solution is not feasible. Under current case law, one cannot sue the government for monetary relief (injunctive relief is possible) unless the government says so. This means that the worst case scenario for the NSA is that they might have to pay the plaintiff's court costs and stop doing whatever they were doing that is illegal.
The solution is to place punative possibilities on government agencies which violate laws at least under particularly egregious circumstances (like this). In these cases, it is appropriate I think for there to be some monetary penalty to the organization. It may not necessarily go to the plaintiffs-- maybe it is sufficient to say "10% of your budget will go back to Congress for redispersal and they cannot just give it back to you."
But making this happen would take political will that nobody in the government has.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I almost agree with your sentiment. You shoouldn't just look at how many issues you agree on with politician X, but also (1) whether politician X can be expected to have an effect on those issues, and (2) how important those issues are. There are a lot of issues I care about, but right now I feel very strongly about the environment. Education is also important for me, but only for those races where the politician in question can have an impact on education. I also care about my civil rights and about America being as safe as possible without sacrificing our liberties. That last one, however, isn't going to have far less of an impact on who I vote into City Council.
On the other hand, sometimes I vote for a candidate for other reasons. In our most recent City Council elections, I voted for the only Republican running and two other Democrats (there were 3 seats to fill). All other seats on the City Council are held by Democrats, and I thought that this Republican (Rob Schilling) had demonstrated that he brought some novel ideas to the Council. Sadly, he was not elected. What I'm trying to justify here, however, is that the value of politician X might depend on who else is in office.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Speaking loudly is often the best protection against the government.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's not as simple as that, the NSA has a certain degree of authority that they most certainly abused. If a government agency that high up came to you and told you to do something that wouldn't really affect your company financially would you do it?
"Am I under arrest?"
"Do you have a warrant?"
"I do not consent to a search."
"I want a lawyer."
"Am I free to go?"
I first heard this checklist (or some similar list) of "what to say if you're being intimidated by the police" from some pothead. Crazy druggies; for some reason they thought that the abusive police tactics being practiced in the "War On Some Drugs" might one day be expanded and used on normal people!
Bush seems to justify a lot of things by saying that the USA is at war. But it's not a type of war that anyone even half a century ago would have recognised. It may be that it *is* a war, (of sorts) but if so I see no prospect of it ever ending. Maybe you (and your allies, such as my own green and pleasant land) will acheive victory over Al Qaida et al but I'm sure that there will be more such extremists in the future.
If "war" can be used as a justification for additional powers make no mistake: they will be permenant.
I hope everyone was this angry when all the previous presidents did the same thing, or when this FISA BS was passed.... http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Warrantless_Eavesdr opping_Timeline
could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems
/.)
Good.
Karma's a bitch (and not the "karma" that's thrown around on
Seems fair. When someone mentions Bush and failing economy, then Bill Clintons name is brought in. When 9/11 is mentioned Clinton Administration is being blamed. I think it's a new trend.
Can I bum a sig?
"If what you are saying is that the USA has gotten so fascistic that people dare not refuse unlawful orders out of fear of the government,..."
Please purchase a copy of "America: Freedom to Fascism" when it comes out on DVD, because the theatrical releases are few and far between.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
It is ok with me if Verizon (my wireless provider) will suffer financially. I am ready to pay $20 a month more for a year (assuming that they will have to raise the service price) so they will recover the legal expences.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
if you want this terror problem dealt with, you have to punish those who are caught and convicted. Not let them off easy.
And what about stopping the support of terrorists before they bite back? Remember bin Laden or the Taliban? Bush Sr supported them during his presidency. In case you don't remember or know, they were fighting against Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. Then Bush Jr, the current occupant of the White House, gave the Taliban millions of US taxpayer dollars shortly after entering office. Saddam? Both Reagan and Bush Sr supported him even as he was using those WMDs against not just Iran but also against Kurds, March Arabs and others in Iraq. They even supplied arms. Bush Sr's support didn't end until Saddam invaded Kuwait, a monarchy even today. The US has a history of assassinations, supporting coups even against, and supporting invasions of countries with democratically elected governments. The School of the Americas, at Fort Benning, GA trained a number of torturers and human rights violators from Latin America. Remember the Jesuit priest and those nuns that were massacred in Latin America back in the '90s? Those accused were trained at the SOA.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Interesting statistics there. In Vietnam we were at a roughly 10:1 kill ratio. In Iraq we're way over that at 171:1
We've gotten much more efficient at killing people. So our tax dollars are being used for something productive, we just didn't know it.
...that doesn't have a simple answer: How can the government protect the country from another 9/11 if it's not allowed to spy?
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
One word: impeach.
Forget the coupons, the telcos should be made to run fiber to everyone in the US like we the people have been paying them to do for decades and for rural phones before that ( not every city in the US even has phone access yet ). Curious question: do the tax supports for US wide broadband accessable lines have any timeline relationships to the numerous attempts by the government to be able to tap everyone's phone calls? What else might be a good conspiracy theory for this: Heretofore forbidden baby bell mergers? Ma Bell being rebuilt? Repeal of the telco competition acts regarding line rentals/sharing? Frankly I think ATT marketed their services. SWB has held a stranglehold on interlata calling in Texas for generations and has continuously tried to emulate their control of the Texas Utilities Commission elsewhere. How could you even seat an unprejudiced jury on these companies?
OK, rant pre-empted due to danger of rapidly getting offtopic and because I don't have time atm to start fact checking and citing sources.
It ain't over 'til the Appeals Process has run it's course... No, Wait! Congress (the opposite of Progress, btw) could trump the whole thing with new law.
Did you know that your cell phone conversations are not protected as private confidential conversations under the law? If you tell someone or your lawyer something confidential while either one of you is on a cell, you're not protected.
What's the difference between an overseas call (call into or out of the US) that is monitored from within the borders of the US or outside?
Ease? Convienience? Think about it.
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
The Bush administration is in a mess here. Their real problem is that if they'd asked the FISA court for the authority to do what they're doing, they'd have been turned down. If they'd asked Congress for it, some tough questions would have been asked by members of Congress in a position to demand answers. Remember, the conservative right, "Bush's Base", isn't comfortable with wiretapping. Bush can go to Congress for more wiretapping authority, but right now, he probably wouldn't get it. Hence the desperate legal moves.
And they are desperate. Notice what happened here. The Administration tried to use a secrecy order to prevent this issue from going to trial. That's because they can't win on the merits. But since the Administration had already admitted enough in public to establish that such wiretapping was going on, that didn't prevent the court from addressing the issue.
At the appeals level, the facts of the case aren't reviewed, just the law. Because, as the district judge pointed out, it is not controverted that such wiretapping occured, that's not a issue. So the secrecy issue isn't really an issue on appeal. This leaves the Administration with only its weak arguments.
Incidentally, this is a criminal statute. See 50 USC 1811. If you work for NSA, or a telephone company and are involved in illegal wiretapping, you could go to jail for five years. That could happen years in the future, under a future administration.
If a government agency that high up came to you and told you to do something that wouldn't really affect your company financially would you do it?
Not all companies did participate in the NSA's spying, for instance Qwest refused to, fearing possible lawsuits, and they were right.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Also do not vote based on a single issue . . ."
I won't vote FOR a politican based on a single issue, but there are definitely single issues that convince me NOT to vote for a person.
I would never vote for any candidate that advocates gun control, nor would I vote for a politician that supported the Patriot Act. Strong support for the war in Iraq is also a stance that would leave a politician with a 0% chance of getting my vote.
That rules out almost everyone in the 2 major parties. Vote Libertarian, Green, or independent. Supporting the Republicans or Democrats is a waste of your vote.
The reason there are terrorists is there's never anything good on TV in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, etc. All it would take is a lot of widescreen TV's and some MTV and Iraqi Idol and roadside bombs would be eliminated. Can't have a terrorist army if your entire populace has had their attention span reduced to 12 seconds!
paintball
i never know if i can trust wikipedia articles on stuff that borders on conspiracy theory, since they could be written by either tinfoil hat lunatics or by the conspirators themselves. the thing that i found interesting, is that the article lists the largest ground stations that are believed to be monitoring centers, and many of them are US army bases that house significant military intelligence facilities. particularly those that specialize in collection and/or analysis. i had army friends in military intelligence and those were popular destinations for those guys. particularly: fort meade buckley AFB diego garcia augsburg, germany fort gordon
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Also, the argument that there is no right to privacy in the constitution is getting ridiculous. I hear this all the time, and yet there have been countless cases decided in courts over the past 30 years that recognize a very real implicit right to privacy. Most famous example .. see ROE v WADE ..
In the article yesterday on this I posted about a SCOTUS ruling dealing with privacy in 1891. That case was Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford. More cases can be found at Findlaw.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Interesting statistics there. In Vietnam we were at a roughly 10:1 kill ratio. In Iraq we're way over that at 171:1
And this is something we should be proud of?
This isn't a video game, and many of those dead (like the Viet Namese before them) are nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of the military.
Besides, it's not your tax dollars, or mine, paying for this. It'll be the taxes of our sons and daughters, and likely their sons and daughters, that will pay for this ill conceived and poorly executed attempt at redefining a regions political and cultural landscape.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
I've heard that Abe Lincoln threw seditious journalists in jail for the duration of the Civil War.
The SCOTUS found Lincoln had violated war protesters' habeas corpus when he jailed them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While I personally would call yesterday's ruling a victory, Attorney General Gonzales is filing an appeal, and the President isn't stopping the program just yet. There can be no final say until the Supreme Court has had a chance to weigh in. I eagerly await it. Although the newest justices (Roberts and Alito) tend to have an expansive view of the Executive Branch's power, I think even they will find it difficult to allow the 4th ammendment, all of Congress, and the FISA courts to be so easily set aside at this or any President's whim.
As for telcos' liability, that can't begin to be settled until the final word on the program itself is out. So, while this article is an interesting study about their potential liability, I'm can't say I expect much to come of it yet.
First you got a governing body to tell you to do something or face the consequences. You can be noble and such and be placed in jail and/or pay for lawyers to defend you, or just do what they say because they tell you it for national security and you have to assume that it is legal.
They could have done just what another company did, refuse. Qwest, who refused to help the NSA, had just as much to "loose" as the others but refused anyway. I have issues with Qwest I don't like but I support them in this.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The only middle ground is in the level of punishment.
This isn't true in all cases. For instance there are heavy minimium sentencing requirements for drug offenses. Someone caught with illegal drugs can spend more tyme in prison even when they didn't harm anyone than someone who violently harms someone else will.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Clinton got a blow job in the white house, and I'll bet a million dollars that you simply overlooked this "inconvenient truth" while he was in office.
Once again the liberal left demonstrates how morally bankrupt and hypocritical they are.
The apple never falls far from the tree...I wonder if W picked up the wiretap strategy from deeds that Sr. did while in Office?
What's amazing is how the rough, tough Authoritarian Right-Wing in this country turned into a bunch of frightened little bedwetters because of a single terrorist attack, so willing to have "Big Daddy" government take away their rights and freedoms so they can be protected. I have to say that I'm ashamed so many of my countrymen have bought into the manipulation of the Bush Administration, which is simply bent on consolidating power at any cost. The events of recent weeks in Britian have shown that a civilized country can fight terrorism without resorting to breaking the law. Even if it's a little bit harder, so be it. We have accepted a lot of things that are harder because we are a free people. Remember, it's much easier to govern as a dictator than as an elected official, responsible to the citizenry. And, it's much easier to live in prison than in the free world. I choose to be free, as have Americans for more than two centuries. And when I hear the Bill Bennetts, William Kristols, Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys, shaking in their boots, so afraid that the big bad terrorists are going to drop a plane on their heads, just begging the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush to please, take away their freedom so they don't have to pee their pants any more, it disgusts me, as it should disgust every American.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Befehl ist befehl", "I was just following (government) orders" - is NOT a valid defence. The companies were obligated to fight the government tooth and nail on this one.
That's not really a fair comparison. On his worst day, Nixon would never even have considered exposing an undercover CIA operative for political gain. At the Bush White House, it's a matter of course.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Here you have it: freedom > security.
Everybody seems to be trying to apply more and more freedoms, ignoring security completely. Give sexual offenders freedom to do what they gotta do, just so long as it isn't around my kids. Give murderers the freedom to kill who they gotta kill, just as long as they claim insanity and get so-called treatment later on. Give terrorists freedom to blow up whatever they gotta blow up, just so long as it isn't in my town. Obviously freedom needs to be greater than security, I wouldn't argue that. But there is a point where it stretches too far, and we start giving too much freedom to the wrong individuals. Our freedoms are expanding rapidly right now, but just wait till the next 9/11. Then people will realize how stupid they're acting now, and the freedoms will shrink back down to reasonable levels. Sad, but that's what it'll take to open people's eyes.
What nonsense are you reading ? Never heard of fear monogoring goverment ? Becose that is what pepole in the USA and UK got at the moment (among other countryes too), goverment that retain the power and control trugh fear. This wiretapping program, is for instance grounded on that fear. It doesn't save anyone in the longrun, but gives the current goverment in the USA massive power over the population, and that is a power that no goverment shoud have.
Large quantities of TracFones...
Are you refering to the two cases in Michigan and Ohio where people were initially charged with terrorism related charges, and then later cleared of those when the government said they had no link to terrorism?
Judging by new reports, Americans are getting more stupid.
First of all, the "jihadis" to whom you're referring are just people buying large numbers of cell phones for resale.
Second, even if some wackjobs are calling their buddies in Waziristan to chat about blowing stuff up, I'd rather the government miss those calls than listen in on mine.
Third, you know what works? FISA warrants. Even your buddy Bill O'Reilly knows it, and he's every bit the wingnut you are.
Good point. The company's stock should be delisted and the proceeds of the auction should go to the victims. Knowing that that would be a likely outcome might serve as an even better deterrent than the thought of losing their jobs. If nothing else, it will cause people to bail out of companies that don't take the problem seriously.
--MarkusQ
This is almost the same thing as another person kept on saying in the discusion yesterday. She kept saying the ACLU went judge shopping to find a simpathetic judge. I searched for and read several articles about it and not one backs up her or your ascertion. The article you provided a link to said nothing about either the EFF or the ACLU, and it was a case brought by the ACLU NOT the EFF, cherrypicking a judge. Are you just making things up or can you provide evidence to backup your accertion the ACLU nevermind the EFF cherry picked a judge?
FalconShould there be a Law?
It also occured to me that if you're trying to villanize Nixon for growing the power of the executive, you better not stop there. Jefferson took office swearing to reduce the size of the federal government and the executive branch, and ended up expanding executive power more then any other president at that time. Not just the Lousiana Purchase, which was just as controversial at the time as anything that Bush has done. The Land Act of 1804 and The Lewis & Clark Expidition were both seen as outside the scope and power of the executive.
Yes, because efficient killing of brown people is the pinnacle of human achievement. And also the best possible use of our tax dollars. Think of the children!
The standard output of freedom will overwrite our security?
I don't consider it an inconvenient truth at all. So he got a blow job, big deal. The "inconvenient truth" is that the Republicans wasted our nations time and money trying to get Clinton out of the White House when he's probably one of the better presidents we've had in the last few decades. We had a budget surplus, a big tech boom (which may have burst, but it was fun while it lasted), and we weren't in the middle of a stupid fucking war that's bleeding way more money than it should.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
...You Liberal fucking troll. Rather than discussing the topic, you choose to flame people and make a partisan battle out of every conversation. You Dems are all the same, immature crybabies.
mature....real mature.
Presidential Pardon
If you post it, they will read.
That only makes it worse.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Wow! The initial news reports about the TracFone 'terrorism' were way off. And I drew totally invalid inferences. In other words I was wrong. Doesn't change my mind about the NSA court ruling - I still think the judge is wrong.
[Insert pithy quote here]
They don't decide questions of law.
Actually one of the most important duties or rolls of a jury is to decide if a law is constitutional. Ever hear of Jury Nullification? As Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Boy, am I glad the NFL is right around the corner. I'm sick of wars, dick presidents, bobs, politics, disasters, deficits. Aaargh. Yuch.
Anyone else think Brett Favre will suck this year?
THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT
"I think it has a lot to do with motivation. Many people feel that the Government/Bush is doing what it/he can (sometimes misdirected) to thwart terrorist attacks. Whether or not you agree with the wisdom of his decisions, it's hard to fault the motivation and gin up some "outrage".
Nixon's was clearly a case of playing unethical (and illegal) tricks on a political opponent.."
A FEW SUSTITUTIONS:
I think it has a lot to do with motivation. Many people feel that the Government/Bush is needlessly and illegally steamrolling civil liberties and privacy (often misdirected) to thwart terrroist attacks. Wether or not you agree with these assertions or the wisdom of his decisions, it's hard to fault the motivation of those who filed the suit in Federal Court and gin up some "outrage" at the loss of civil liberties and privacy.
GWB is clearly a case of playing unethical (and illegal) tricks on the Nation.
So far, at least one Federal Judge and the ACLU agrees with the illegal part.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Let us play a game. Let us assume that the Bush administration is seriously trying to impose a dictatorship over the United States. Let us also assume that this dictatorship will use modern tools to retain power indefinitely and appear not to by use of clever manipulation of mass media and the branches of government. Let us then assume that once the timing is right they will use this absolute power over the United States to attempt to dominate the world. Now for the sake of the game let us assume that something has gone wrong with the plan and it is clear to everyone, yourself included, that this is their plan. For example you have seen official documents posted to a reputable blog from identifiable and reliable sources and those sources are publicly executed... any kind of event where now everyone in the country knows that U.S. constitution is no more, and we are living in a dictatorship. In this situation, what would you do? What actions could you, could we, as individuals take upon ourselves to stop restore freedom and justice?
I don't think it is all lazy... I don't know exactly what someone is supposed to do to get a voice in this country anymore. Even when there are riots against the WTO there is no media coverage, no public debate. Politics in this country have been short-circuited by the ownership of all media by corporations and the endless focus on issues with which there is no negotiation (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
Bush has violated no rights of anybody in Git'mo. They are *not* US Citizens therefore they have no rights under the Constitution. They are enemy combatants. They do not even have rights under the Geneva convention since they operate under no recognized flag; They are terrorists. In effect, they are spy's and the Geneva Convention allows us to shoot them on sight... so I guess we are treating them better than they deserve, eh?
The Constutition says we are granted certain inalienable rights. It doesn't say that being in the United States gives you the rights, it says you have those rights and the citizens agree to grant certain priviliges to the government to help them own cause.
You have to remember the founding fathers had just finished fighting a war in a British colony (there was no USA) over thus stuff. And none of them were US citizens at the time because there was no US. Do you really think they were fighting for the time for something they felt they deserved at a later point in time once they made their own government up?
The Constitution doesn't give demarcation points beyond which rights don't exist.
Lastly, the decision this activist judge made only effects the Eastern District of Michigan. The rest of the country is unaffected by her ruling since it is outside her jurisdiction. All she has done is make her district a little less safe for US citizens and more of a safe-haven for Alqaeda.
That last part is ridiculous. But anyway, you need to look up how precedent works. The rulings of a US District judge set precedent for the entire country.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Does it strike anybody else as odd that the article quotes the prediction of doom for the telcos made by the very people who are suing said telcos?
"Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA.
I mean, the quote pulled from TFA is from the ACLU's lead attorney. Sounds like a severe case of somebody saying exactly what you would expect them to say -- about they only thing they can say without looking like they've filed a frivilous lawsuit. So, whatever you think about the merits of the case, the merits of the prediction are clearly too underwhelming to get worked up about.
As for the merits of the case, scared people do dumb things. We had Japanese internment camps in WWII, and the system righted itself. I'm guessing that after all the thrash and bluster, it will this time, too. Of course, I didn't start saying that until I took off my tin foil hat.
The proof of cherrypicking is twofold:
1) They got the result the wanted, and
2) The desicion is widley critizied as being devoid of real content - note in the article I linked to they were not nessecarily for the wiretapping, they just wanted a thoughtful analysis of why or why not it is illegal.
Also why file in THAT district? If you can provide a good reason for doing so...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
- Elimination of the "Gold Standard" of US Currency allowing more natural currency flux
You listed this as one of the good things by mistake. It's one of the worst things ever done in the history of government finance. It allows for unlimited deficit financing by the government which consequentially allows for unlimited inflation (aka hyperinflation) as a corner stone of a permanent armistice industry.
There's nothing "natural" about allowing a government to print more money whenever it overspends.
(This, artificially low interest rates set by the Fed, and fractional reserve banking are why limited-liability megacorporations accrue such a disproportionate transfer of wealth, with everyone else left holding the bag.)
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. Takes courage to do that.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
So you actually think that acting outside the constitution is Okay? That is never justified, and is the price we pay for being civilized.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
A while back, a law was passed that said that communication companies had to provide facilities to allow the government to tap communications of any kind. The penalty for not complying was $200,000.00/Day. I can understand why communications companies would cooperate with the government given the stakes. Communications companies complained because certain kinds of communication networks have to be tapped intrusively, such as fiber optic networks. There is no electromagnetic leakage that can be used for a passive tap. I haven't heard much from the companies lately. dwg
So you actually think that acting outside the constitution is Okay? That is never justified, and is the price we pay for being civilized.
Abraham Lincoln suspended some constitutional rights (for example he suspended habeas corpus) during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt authorized massive surveillance and censorship during WWII. Sometimes the temporary suspension of some rights is the price we pay to defend civilization.
[Insert pithy quote here]
And they were smacked down for it. Never mind that they were operating in wartime, and we are not.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
First a disclaimer: I work for an American television network in the news division. You will not see my commentary on our news report because we have been pandering to this Administration (and no, we're not Fox, which does not do news).
And this is the problem. Why have the MSM (Main Stream Media) given in to the administrations party line? The MSM is a total joke these days, and they wonder why viewership has been declining.
It the media would get off their collective ass, and seriously start reporting on this corrupt administration on a *DAILY* basis, the viewers will come back.
Now, get to work!
P.S. You may want to edit your profile.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Of course the verdict alone is no proof of judge-picking. But consider all the points I raised, along with the fact that the plaintiff got to choose the judge to try the case. If you can come up with a simpler explaination for why that given judge was chosen, by all means present it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
An international phone call is an international commercial transaction. It is moving electronic signals between two countries for a fee paid by the parties involved.
Just as the US gov't has the right to inspect every container on every ship that crosses US borders, it also has the right to inspect every phone call that crosses US borders. There is no unreasonable search or seizure occuring with this program.
The talking point used when labeling the right as "cowards" applies equally to those that fear the monitoring of international phone transmissions.
*all spelling and punctuation mistakes preserved in the name of humanity*
And the Vietnam War was started by... anyone? anyone?
I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Nixon. It wasn't even a republican.
Pulling out of vietnam when we did was a monumental mistake, that cost the lives of approximately 2,270,000 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. I'm sure if you knew your history you would care about these lives as much as those you've already listed. The media were giddy at the time because the successfully propagated the lie that we were losing, and over time turned the fiction into reality. They then turned a blind eye to the terror and destruction they helped to create.
Your Iraq war numbers are farcical as well. More people died per year under Saddam Hussiens rule than have died each year during the current war. You didn't see the killing, so I guess it didn't exist. There were >400,000 in mass graves in Iraq. You do the math. That doesn't sound like 'peace' to me.
Now about the wiretapping. The wiretapping is of foreign phone calls to and from the U.S. The creation of the FISA court back in 1979 was a power grab by congress, that even the Clinton Administration stated had no real authority. No one seemed too concerned when the eschelon program was announced during that administration. Al Gore was championing it.
Experts in constitutional law have stated that this ruling will not stand. The authority the President cites is present in the constitution. I know that here on slashdot I am not arguing with constitutional scholars, but please learn the issues before going off half cocked.
The untenability of the majority position in this particular forum will be born out when this opinion is overturned. I don't expect anyone here to actually understand the issue when that time comes either.
A government agent, possibly armed, shows up in your office with instructions and hints of the PATRIOT Act and Gitmo. The instructions don't include warrants like you're used to seeing, but a Federally subsidized vacation in Cuba doesn't sound too attractive and, besides, you're rather fond of making your mortgage payment.
I can understand the pressure and sympathize with the person under it.
But similar pressure is imposed by leaders of criminal gangs to "encourage" participation in their activities. Yet being under such pressure is no excuse when an underling is caught and tried for committing a crime.
Why should it be any different for a corporate executive, manager, or worker? Or for the corporate pesudo-person itself?
"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. - U.S. Supreme Court Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 442"
Seems to me this applies to unconstitutional orders from members of the executive branch just as much as to unconstitutional acts of congress. And that the "imposes no duties" and "affords no protection" parts would apply in such a case.
Presuming the court ruled correctly, the executive did not have the power to issue the order. So the order "imposed no duties" on the tellco or its employees, whose choice to follow it was thus personal or corporate. And thus the order also "affords no protection" from the legal consequences of committing the act, such as liability for damages it inflicts.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Viet Nam war was setup by Eisenhower, pushed in by Kennedy, pushed along even further by Johnson, then rammed down our throats by Nixon. I was alive starting before Eisenhower.
My numbers on Iraq are those from the US Government. Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly evil, but didn't kill as many Kurds or anyone else (save for Iranian/Shiites) as we have in the past fifteen years. Your cognizance of the wiretapping is also hideously in error. Please read what the administration has testified before Arlan Spector's committee, starting with A Gonzales. You're woefully mistaken.
Your chosen 'experts' face a Supreme Court that's already handed Bush and his fascist paranoid government their heads on a platter on these issues of separation of powers on several occasions. You must get outside and stop watching Fox News for a while.
The authority that the President cites IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Here, let's review the Fourth Amendment:
Amendment IV - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V also applies here:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Please research what you're talking about prior to accusing one of being half cocked and not knowing the issues. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're wrong.
War is evil. There is no justifiable war except defense. The defense posed by the administration were a chain of lies and deceipt. Bush didn't wait for diplomacy. Instead, he went off-- half cocked as you would call it-- without a plan, without the money, and without the justifcation and help from the international community that even his father solicited.
Were I to place a bet, I believe you would lose your expostulation. This one is a breach of many things that America stands for. Privacy and self determination without governmental snooping is high on the list. We don't have to like the government; it just has to tolerate us. The phrase "We the people..." mean anything to you?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"There were >400,000 in mass graves in Iraq."
Links please.
And I don't mean links that claim the same thing. Everybody claims that Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen and they are buried in these 'mass graves', but I haven't seen much evidence of 'mass graves'.
Occasionally they find a 'mass grave' which has turned out to be a cemetery.
So please give us links to documentary evidence of these >400,000 people buried in these 'mass graves'.
Two wrongs make a right!
HOW can you be free, if you are not allowed to be free in your OWN country, shackled by your own government ?
Read radical news here
Assuming Congress gives Bush his law retroactively saying he isn't a war criminal, I assume corporations will bribe the congressmen to pass a similar law absolving them of any consequences since they "were acting in good faith on direction of the government for the safety of the nation."
Oh yeah, and there were about 28,000 GIs killed in Viet Nam, not to mention about a quarter of a million Vietnamese.
Not to defend Nixon, but the first American fatalities came in the late 50s. Of the roughly 58,000 casualties in Vietnam, many were killed before he took office in early 1969. Arugably after such a long time there wasn't much that could have been done in terms of new policies. It was already a mess when he took office.
Of course that is all very much unlike the current Iraq war. Where the President has made his own mess and utterly refused to either pullout or address the realities involved.
Kennedy could have stopped it. Eisenhower could have stopped it. Johnson could have stopped it. But the escalation, illegal bombing, and the whole gut-it-out era came with Nixon. If you chart the years vs the presidency, Nixon had them by far.
That's not to count the number of dead Indonesian communists (>1million) that we influenced with Suhkarto and Suharto as we allowed Indonesia to soak up 1/15th of the world's population into a single governance.
And there are more atrocities foised by the unbelievably paranoid American presidents. So let's tie that back to Nixon. Yes, he went and opened China. Now China owns the United States in terms of balance of trade. Now that the yuan floats, we're in deep shit. And it won't get better because our export economy requires cheap fuel, and we can't get it. See Thomas Friedman's column on one aspect of this today in the NYT.
Further, we've blown the terrorist threat by throwing kerosine, instead of non-flammable foam on it. Our allies (the few that are left) are caught up in the no-diplomacy government of ours that favors end-time rapture rather than cogent foreign policy.
Killing is not the solution. Religious hatred is the enemy. Religious orthodoxy will kill us all if we're not careful. And to tie this back to the original treatise, the current administration, much like the Nixon administration (yes, they're all guilty to one degree or another) usurps the rights of the people in favor of those in control in the government, who in turn are bought off lock-stock-and-barrel by the legislative bribery we have today.
It's ugly. It's sad. It's greedy. It's banal. It's going to be paid for by subsequent generations, where my father fought to prevent that.... as did his.... etc.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If everything works out right, then our sons and daughters can leach off of the sons and daughters of Iraq. 50 years ago, many wanted to leave Germany and Japan in shambles. Today, would you say we are better or wose off for helping rebuild DE and JP?
If we can do Iraq right, we will have cheap access to oil. We will have millions more customers for Nike, McDonalds, and WalMart. We will have, in 50 years or so, absorbed a large portion of Middle Eastern culture. Our sons and daughters will debate over eating Italian, German, Japanese, or Iraqi food at the mall.
Or, we could just up and leave. Pull out the tentstakes and just hope for the best. How long would it be before the warlords stepped in and turned Iraq into something much worse than we had before?
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I always like it when people work out the math of problems on /. And while your math seems fine, I think a few of your assumptions are...well, a bit on the high side. That said, I am not a statistician (and statistics was one of my weaker engineering degree subjects).
.18 hours a day (again, on average). That gives us 93.6MB/day, or 34GB/yr. The numbers from the table would be about 8.5MB/day or 3.1GB/year.
;).
:).
For starters, you assume that each person talked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (6.5KB/s * 2 * 86,400 sec = 1.066GB/day). Longest time I ever spent on the phone in one shot was 10 hours. I think perhaps there are numbers out there that might show it's slightly lower than that. We could say up to 2 hours a day, on average, for fun. My guess is it's closer to that of the link I cited, about
Second, you assume that all 250 million people in the US have phones. Five live in my house, and we have a land line and two cell phones (my oldest is 5). There are about 110 million households in the USA. The last census said about 93% had phones. There are more than 100 million cellphones out there. But I don't use both at once. There are 220 million people in the US, age 16 and up, arguably the predominant class of phone users.
You also assume that no two people are talking to one another (250 million bi-directional conversations). That's 500 million "conversers" (assuming no three way calling). Hopefully a sophisticated spying system wouldn't record both conversation directions on each end.
Anyway, I work out that, assuming more probablistic use of the phone system, in terms of raw storage, they'd need:
6.5KB/s * 648sec/day * 365days = 1.58GB/yr per channel (on average nationwide)
220 million users, one 'speaking' channel each * 1.58GB/yr = 347,600,000GB/year.
347,600,000GB / 300GB = 1,158,666 $100 hard drives, or $115 million. Peanuts.
My math could be wrong though, I did use windows calc
Oh, and there are also pretty good compression routines for voice out there (much better than 53kbps/channel), speech recognition for suspicious keywords that would allow routinely deleting obvious calls to grandma about aunt Mildred's bunions, etc.
I hope this didn't come off as a flame. I thank you for motivating me to actually think about it, actually
If Star Trek had the internet: Captain, we've received an IM from the romulans. "Surrender or be destroyed. LOL. o.O"
Agreed. See my post "Good Point" above.
--MarkusQ
You are absolutely correct. We don't do what we used to back when there was journalism on television. And one university professor told me that when the large corporations demanded that the news shows pay for themselves, that was the end of any attempt at journalism as a public service.
It's sad.
Of course, there is no rebuttal from the parent poster because the lunatic fringe don't like it when they're proven wrong.
Just recently, Bush announced that the real loser of the Israel-Lebanon war was Hezbollah. I think the facts are, daily, proving him wrong and that Hezbollah and their partners-in-crime, Iran, will find their status in the region ascendant. Israel will be seen as the real loser here and the ability of the US to broker so much as a roast beef sandwich in the Middle East has been utterly destroyed. The only thing we do there is to provide Israel with "cover" for their incitements (like today's attack in violation of the cease-fire agreement they just signed) and prevent the UN from taking any real steps to achieve peace in the region.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
I admit, my estimates were insanly overestimations on a lot of the elements. My point was to demonstrate that even in the extreme case, it would be possible for a government like the US to finance such a program. But it's nice to have a more reasonable estimation on what it'd probably cost on an average case.
:)
Oh, and it didn't come off as a flame.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
1) They got the result the wanted, and
The evidence the EFF went judge shopping is that the judge ruled in their favor? First it wasn't the EFF it was the ACLU. If a judge rules favorably does that mean the winning party went judge shopping? So someone convicted of murder can say the DA went judge shopping? In other words the fact don't matter?
2) The desicion is widley critizied as being devoid of real content - note in the article I linked to they were not nessecarily for the wiretapping, they just wanted a thoughtful analysis of why or why not it is illegal.
So any ruling that is widely critized means the winner went judge shopping?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Of course the verdict alone is no proof of judge-picking. But consider all the points I raised, along with the fact that the plaintiff got to choose the judge to try the case. If you can come up with a simpler explaination for why that given judge was chosen, by all means present it.
All of what points? You only mention 2: the first is they won, and the second is that it was widely critized. As for the plaintiff choosing the judge can you prove that? As I stated before I read a number of articles about this case and not one of them said anything about the plaintiff judge shopping. Can you provide evidence to support your statement or are you just blowing smoke?
FalconShould there be a Law?
As Benjamin Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I value my liberty more than safety and maybe more than you do yours. If you want your safety net why not move to Cuba? You'll get your safety net there. Of course you'd better not speak up about the powers that be.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Who did YOU vote for?
I'm not sure what the civilian to 'dissident' ratio was in our kills for Vietnam.
I fear not only have we killed more iraqi civilians, but we have also killed much less enemy than we did in Vietnam. The ratio of US soldiers killed to assumed enemy would be the quantitiy we'd like to compare - have we really killed 35k+ enemy to get a 10:1?
I am sceptical.
That's right kid, the standard output of freedom overrides security.
Seen another way, freedom implies security, not the other way around.
The Viet Nam war was the wrong thing to do for the right reasons, just as invading Iraq seemed to be the right thing at the time. In both cases, the reasons have been long invalidated.
But how you can seemingly permit the tyrany of searches without probable cause goes far beyond what my forefathers fought for.
And the leap to believing that I think that Geo Bush is an enemy defies all logic. He's very inept, a bad planner, and skates over the constitution like he owns it. We own it, not George. Your fear of terrorists amounts to narcissistic paranoia. Bush has actually aided the orthodoxy by polarizing them against us. They were crude and inept before. Now they're organized and much better funded, while world opinion of the US has waned significantly as they see our purported values thrown out the window when the first smell of trouble comes. This isn't bravery, it's a mockery of the courage of our forefathers.
I can't convince you of any of this, I'm thinking. Your black and white, us or them world won't allow it. It's not that easy, and not that simple. Without civil liberty, we lose.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If everything works out right, then our sons and daughters can leach off of the sons and daughters of Iraq. 50 years ago, many wanted to leave Germany and Japan in shambles. Today, would you say we are better or wose off for helping rebuild DE and JP?
Apples to irrelevant oranges. Germany and Japan may have been under totalitarian governments, but those governments weren't sitting on top of a powerkeg of ethnic and religious sects waiting to explode.
If we can do Iraq right
Too late. Far, far to late.
Or, we could just up and leave. Pull out the tentstakes and just hope for the best.
How much is too much? How many thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars need to be lost before the backers of the Iraqi invasion admit they totally and completely failed? Is it worth loosing 60,000 troops like we did in Vietnam? Is it worth another few trillion dollars to "stay the course?"
How long would it be before the warlords stepped in and turned Iraq into something much worse than we had before?
The Bush Administration did that already, thank you. The Iraqi people would have been better off if Saddam had been left in power. Neocons don't seem to realize that something you hate can be replaced with something much worse. The people of Afganistan would have been better off with a communist government than living under the Taliban. Communism fell in Yogoslavia, and it promptly disintegrated into civil war...just like Iraq has.
Those two sets might overlap for the most part, but they're not identical.
This means that when I buy a handgun, I am not free to shoot you with it, because it defeats the very definition of freedom, by stopping you forever from undertaking whatever action you are capable of and want to do. Same goes if I steal your car: I'm not expressing my freedom but instead reducing your freedom to drive home, your freedom to exchange this car for something that pleases you better, etc... I'm free to flap my arms and fly around, it's just that I'm not capable of it, just like I'm free to print my views, but am not capable of at the moment because I don't own a printing press.
Maybe we deserve this world ?