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.
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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
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.
No the answer is for Americans to get the *&%$ over this two party mentality and the driving NEED to vote for the guy who one and VOTE, VOTE OFTEN and VOTE YOUR CONTSCIENCE, not who you think is going to win.
Also do not vote based on a single issue. Regardless of what you may think of the abortion issue basing a decition as important as who you vote for on that single issue is STUPID. If politician X agrees with me on 8 of 10 issues I find important and disagrees on 2, and politician Y agrees with 2 and disagrees on 8, why the hell would I pick Y even if those 2 where "hot button" issues? Yet oh so many Americans do.
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.
"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!
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.
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
That's prolly a good idea.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
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.
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.
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.
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!