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.'"

11 of 501 comments (clear)

  1. It's only a liability for them... by Avillia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's only a liability for them... by nanojath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you (and the many others asserting this sentiment) are wrong. I'm not counting on it, certainly, but I hope you are. The Supreme Court has a long history of dissapointing the people who put it into power, and while I'm not thrilled or encouraged by many of the cases we've seen before, I don't think there is any guarantee that the administration will get a pass on this. It is not so easy to get a total partisan hack or lap dog into the SCOTUS, and people change when they receive that lifetime, practically bulletproof appointment. The degree to which the Bush administration has claimed presidential authority over roles constitutionally assigned to the judiciary is extraordinary and I maintain hope that it will be corrected.

      If they capitulate, then we know that we really lost. And that those terrorists, eleven murderous zealots, really won. If the check of the judiciary is that emasculated then liberty in America is truly dead.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  2. Re:What a Novel Concept! by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fully agree with the sentiment. Nixon resigned under the shadow of impeachment for illegally wiretapping a hotel. One single place. This administration basically wrietapped the entire country. I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage. It saddens me.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
  3. Re:What a Novel Concept! by supabeast! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the way the American legal system works, it's far more likely that we'll all just get coupons toward extra phone services we don't have now, the phone companies will run some public service advertisements about communications, and the lawyers will rake in piles of cash.

  4. Re:What a Novel Concept! by ookabooka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Wait, you mean that a company that wronged me and my fellow countrymen might be under legal penalty? You mean I might have as much right to my privacy as my government?"

    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? I assume that the telcos thought they would be in way more trouble if they didn't comply, the NSA would make them their enemies (Would you want to be on the bad side of the NSA?) that the media would tear them apart for assisting "terrorists". As an informed slashdottter, I am appalled. From a business and PR perspective, I can sympathize.

    The true evil here is the NSA, while it is a common stratagy for the executive branch to pretend it has more power than it does, these guys took it way too far. Don't get me wrong I think the telcos should have thought a bit longer, hopefully they will get some sort of punishment so there is more of an incentive for companies to think before they comply with a government request.

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  5. Re:What a Novel Concept! by lottameez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage.

    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.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  6. Re:What a Novel Concept! by rbochan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage.


    I'll reiterate:

    The US government must think that Americans are lazy, brainless sheep who will shut out even the most obvious evidence that criminals are running the country. I mean seriously, only the most idiotic... Oh look! American Idol is on!

    --
    ...Rob
    The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  7. Limited Government. by Irvu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.


    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.
  8. Oh, think of the companies! by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    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

  9. Re:What a Novel Concept! by Aadain2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I really wish I had mod points for your post! You hit it on the head! People in this country just don't give a damn any more. And if you try to convince them otherwise, they or the government place the ultimage trump card: it's to protect the country from terrorists.

    You know that saying that came out after 9/11, how if we don't do this or that, the terrorists have won? Well, they did win. Life in American will never be the same again.

    --
    Space for rent, inquire within
  10. Re:What a Novel Concept! by PFI_Optix · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?


    Not really. I doubt anyone alive today remembers 1788 all that well.
    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.