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.
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?
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.
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
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?
"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"
BZZT. Not only have the courts refuted you on that, but Bush himself has accepted that you're wrong.
"Bush has not broken any laws in the eaves-dropping the NSA has done. We are at war and we are eavesdropping on enemy communications. And make sure you get that phrasing correct. There have not been any wiretaps, only Eaves droppings. Its a huge difference that the Antique media conveniently misses."
Bush has violated 2 constitutional rights here.
a) The right of freedom of association.
b) No search & seizure without a warrant. One person on all of those "international calls" was an American whose call was searched and seized without a warrant. Make no mistake. The US Constitution says nothing involving an American can be searched and seized without a warrant.
But most importantly:
c) The NSA was also monitoring all Americans' calls - every citizen in America was being wiretapped, all without probable cause, all without a warrant. Flat out, the US Constitution completely and expressly forbids this, and there is no room for an alternative interpretation of the Constitution on this issue.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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.
One word: impeach.
Proving that something is within the President's power is revealing a state secret? I thought all of the President's powers were enumerated in the Constitution. He now has secret powers that nobody can know about? That is EXACTLY the kind of "President's Prerogative" that the Furher's Princip is all about.
From the Wikipedia article:
This is a time when it IS appropriate and no hyperbole of any kind was introduced.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
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?
Well in 1981, surely Nixon was not in office, and if you had read the PRECEDENT set by the 1980 ruling, if the communication is for FOREIGN intelligence gathering a Warrant is not needed... I AGREE it woudl be great if this precedent was not in place, but it is, and I cannot pretend it is not and scream BUSH IS WRONG!! when clearly, he did soemthing which i may consider wrong, but the law does not, We will see what happens to the Governments appeal on Sept 7th
1980 A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)).