Slashdot Mirror
Retroactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data
quanticle writes "The government has proposed giving retroactive immunity to telephone companies for giving personal data to the government, even if such requests are later found to be illegal."
I too welcome our new United Soviet States of America fascist overlords
So it's legal for companies to share my data, but not for me to share theirs?
... this is as close as we'll ever get to having a time machine. I need one for my parking tickets. ;-)
"Government and Business sitting in a tree, P-L-O-T-I-N-G"
What the government should do instead is require itself to indemnify phone companies for any judgments entered against them as a result of complying with the government's illegal requests.
... you see, this is impossible. Impossible, due to the separation of powers. It's obviously the executive branch of government that is requesting the data, and the legislative that would be able to grant immunity. And it anything goes wrong, the judicative can be called upon, by any involved party. Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances.
It's the magic of the system, as written down on a just piece of paper.
yes, we have no bananas
With the election day coming, there is no doubt that a lot of retroactive immunities, pardons and whatnot will be signed just before Bush leaves. Were the Rep. sure that they would get the office again, they could do it furtively a la George Ford pardoning Nixon. But as the Dems, odds to win seems to be way higher, they must to act very fast and be sure to shred every piece of evidence. Just look at the whole house of cards falling, Gonzales, Wolfovitz, Rove, Libby, etc.
Come to Canada, where the government is too stupid to do anything.
The government has proposed giving retroactive immunity to telephone companies for giving personal data to the government
Complete and utter BS, but not necessarily relevant - You can't measure the "damages" of phone companies "sharing" info in simple dollars. So, I have a question for the idiots supporting this: Can the government retroactively take away all the bad PR for the companies that sold us out?
Simple example, I will not ever use Verizon again. Not for phone, not for DSL, not for (the much bigger reason they should care) the T1 at my place of employment. And, as a fairly respected geek among my family and peers, I strongly encourage those who ask my advice to do the same (to date, Verizon has lost at least eight (A)DSL customers, two T1s, and two SDSL loops for which I can personally take credit). Do I seriously think that hurt them enough to make a difference? Certainly not just my recommendations, but given enough people like me - Well, I note with some glee that Verizon has strangely decided to divest themselves of the Northeast...
So, unless the government can also erase our memories, "immunity" won't save those businesses who chose to betray their customers. And corporate America damned well better start hearing that message if they want to stay in business.
Because, well, what would this law be good for if the telcos didn't already hand over all kind of information illegally and in blatant violation of any privacy laws?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is about being able to get that data in the future too. The government knows that if they want the telcos to just hand over your info in the future, they have to make sure the telcos past actions don't cost them in court. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the only way to be sure it doesn't happen again is to make sure it costs those bastards a boat load of cash, which no longer seems likely. Some "get pounded in the ass" prison time would help too, for the CEO types who had to sign off on this bullshit, but that is even less likely. The US doesn't have much in common with the Constitution anymore.
All he had to do is making snooping legal if there's some way to mask it as the "fight against communism". And since those red bellied Dems are half way to communism anyway...
Why does everyone seemingly accept any kind of illegal action as long as it can somehow be called the "fight against terror"? Why do people accept this kind of BS from the people who allegedly work FOR them?
Politicians are our employees. We put them there. If they don't work as intended, fire them!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A lesson for us all! When you help the Gestapo, the Gestapo will help you.
Canada is what the Founding Fathers would have wanted. It's without doubt that Harper and his "Conservatives" would act identically to today's Republicans in the US, to the detriment of all Canadian citizenry. However, thanks to the opposition parties (notice that it's parties, not just party), he has been limited in his ability to act out all the draconian measures he likely would want to employ. Checks and balances, my friend. Although such checks and balances have been mostly washed away in the US, let's hope they remain fairly strong in Canada.
Still another rationalization and legal blow to liberty: searches without warrants, no probable cause, and it won't cease here. You're already stripped visually at airports, your personal data in relationship to the government made public, and there seems little that can be done to stop it. Perhaps a new breed of patriot might overthrow King George. No- wait, please don't mind this posting and start sending Treasury Agents to my door.... really-- I'm not a seditionist.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Radioactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data Does that mean that the Telcos will be the only ones left when the revolution comes? A world ruled by Telcos, a scary thought. "Hello, would you like to switch to our new democracy plan? The voting machines won't work unless it's the third Sunday of the year, but you get free evenings and weekends!"
"I will make it legal"
There was nothing to see there. Move along.
The Bush administration is so corrupt that it is difficult for one person even to summarize all the corruption. But I tried: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy
I wonder how the executive branch will attempt to sell this to Congress? "The Telcos performed illegal acts because we told them to"?
Also it is worth noting that the Bush administration started domestically spying before 9/11 and we all know how well the government used it's resources to prevent the "attacks".
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
.. I tell myself, before I go to sleep..
(Split Enz)
For spammers:
1. Start your own telecomm company.
2. Collect personal data from other telecomms
3. Target-spam people on the list you cllected
4. Profit
5. Buy underpants
OK, 5 doesn't strictly belong on the list, I just felt the list was a little spare...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
bring the United States of America into this.
The US has a Constitution which says that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
This is about a corrupt administration which feels it is above the law.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The telcos won't pay taxes on this windfall, either.
Have we got Mass Media? Check. Have we got the technology for GlobeNet?
Sure! Let's check this out, I guess:
"The Corporate Republic utilizes knowledge of the market place and economics
to produce the greatest gold of any large empire. This government utilizes
orbital communications to communicate its far-flung franchises."
"Facism rules with cruelty and lies, turning patriots into monsters while
building a war machine unmatched for any medium empire. Facism is the only
government to allow the Facist unit."
A comparison:
Facism Corp. Republic
Growth: Average Good
Production: Good Good
Science: Average Good
Gold: Bad Good
Military: Excellent Average
Pollution: Average Awful
Max Science Spending: 70% 60%
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
This is, like so many Administration theories of executive power, novel. Here, the information does not bear on the misdeeds of the phone companies. It is the very act of turning over the information that is a crime.
The administration is telling the telcos that they can commit a crime, and because is suits their policies they will look the other way. Normally immunity involves disclosing information that a party has a right to disclose, but cannot be compelled to disclose. Here the administration is supposedly granting a right to disclose that that the telcos do not otherwise have.
Personally, I don't think this sticks in the next administration. The administration does not have the power to set aside laws that explicitly limit the investigatory power of the state.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...from section 408 of the proposed bill, and it's buried beneath the innocuous headline "Liability Defense." How can a citizen find out who added this clause? As someone pointed out, it is unconstitutional. If a representative puts a blatently unconstitutional paragraph into a law, it should be grounds for immediate removal from office IMHO. (Nevermind the obvious ethical implications) Someone who does that is not qualified for their position, and is not upholding their duty in office. I can't make that happen, but I should at least know who it is, and make others aware.Why exactly is it stupid for the government to not do much (in terms of change) ?
Seems to me the whole political process SHOULD be slow in order to stop individual administrations from making massively sweeping reforms that undo centuries of hard work..
MABASPLOOM!
I can't impeach either one of them. You may want to talk to the House of Representatives about this.
Can someone please explain to me why this isn't considered unconstitutional?
You have been misinformed, Anonymous Coward. We here in the US do not elect who we want into office. We are presented with two candidates, one placed by a big, greedy company (of sorts), and the other placed by a different big, greedy, company. We have the choice between a turd and a douche bag. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd
As for the GP post, he was referring to the United States Constitution declaring that it defines what America is, and what the politicians can do.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
What government is going to do this? The New World Order? Because I'm pretty sure the Technocracy wouldn't need to *ask* for such information...
The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
I hope all this rampant corruption and abuse is the sign that the worst administration in the history of the U.S. is about to collapse. If history is our guide, Rome had the same signs. What will be the aftermath is the question.
unless Gonzalez certifies that your sharing it "is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack" You remember Gonzalez, right?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Retroactive immunity in medical malpractice has been deemed to be illegal. So, I would think that it would be here, also.
was written for a populist government. Words mean things, and an "ex post facto" (latin for "after the fact") law is one which changes the legal consequences of a past event. It's clear, unambiguous language.
Having said that, I'm aware that there are many examples where the courts have made rulings which plainly and directly contradict the clear meaning of the words. is a particularly disingenuous one - it found that growing crops for personal use was "interstate commerce," and has become the basis for rampant federalism, in direct conflict with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, other than a revolution, there's no recourse when the Supremes boldly proclaim that "Black is White." It does, however, mean that we are no longer a nation of law, since words have no meaning to our courts.
In the case at hand, the courts can say otherwise all they want, but the fact is, the emperor has no clothes.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
That they complied with one of Bush's illegal and immoral demands for information without a warrant.
I dropped them cold. I terminated my account. Sold my phone. and switched to Qwest - because they refused the illegal demands.
And all should know - if you can retroactively make illegal acts legal, you can make them illegal again if the whole act of making them legal was illegal - which it is.
This administration is so far from a democracy it is amazing that the American people have stood for it. That said, I have to congratulate the Bush administration for convincing an entire country that black is white, facism is freedom, and the immorality is moral.
Sadly, I think that it is too late for this country, and by extension, the world. The Bush administration has let the real issues, the most dangerous to humanity, fester -- or has actually made them worse. We have lost eight years in working to solve the world's greatest threats - eight years that one day people will look back on and curse that they could have done something and yet did not.
And Bill Clinton also wasted ten years. While not as outright damaging as George Bush, Bill Clinton also threw away a huge opportunity to do good.
One small step for security, one giant step for American Fascism. AKA Bush's legacy.
The prohibition bears on Congress (being part of Article I, "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and the states (Sec 10, "No State shall...pass any...ex post facto Law"), and does not preclude the Judiciary from ruling based on common law. The Judiciary does not "pass" laws.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
If they could retroactively give the telcos immunity on private data sharing then wouldn't it be possible that at some time in the future also that they could retroactively remove said immunity for the telcos?
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do
Fuck That Bullshit
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
The single biggest reason for this attempted change is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T.
While $10,000 per violation-- the fine set in federal law-- isn't all of the damages, it certainly adds up to more than AT&T is worth: it could easily run into 100's of billions of dollars.
The EFF started this lawsuit 15 months ago, and is going up against organizations which have 100 times more lawyers than the EFF does. The EFF is a member supported organization. (What, you think they're getting major corporate donations? From who- Apple Computer? Sony? From big-money foundations? Do those foundations even understand why the technologies and policies the EFF fights for need to be fought for?)
it is truly amazing how people who haven't read the Constitution feel able to comment on what it says.
Article II, Sec 2: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."
The President has no power to pardon one party in a civil action. In the situation at hand, the offence is by ATT against their customers. Neither is "the United States."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I vote to lynch the bastards. With rope. I know where there's a good tree with sturdy branches.
Bush is now attempting to control the damage caused by his warrant-less wiretapping scandal with the NSA and AT&T, amongst others. He wants to have legislation introduced that would grant retroactive immunity to phone companies that have assisted in his scheme in the past.
t empts-damage-control.html )
:-P
In other words, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Bush now wants Congress to give him and his accomplices a clean-slate for his and their past crimes. As the government later explains:
"companies that cooperate with the Government in the war on terror deserve our appreciation and protection--not litigation."
This is Bush trying to protect the phone companies, and in particular, AT&T, for actions that are clearly illegal, and is likely specifically targeting the EFF case against AT&T over the scandal. If the actions were authorized and legal, as the Bush administration claims, why would this (overly long and painful to read) clause even be necessary?
As Benjamen Franklin once said, those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I hope the Democrats who control congress do the right thing and reject this legislation. Furthermore, more investigations into the scandal need to be done, and Bush should be impeached for his blatant violations of the US constitution and the rights of his citizens (as well as his baseless aggression and attacks against countries such as Iraq).
(These are excerpts from a post on my Blog before this story was posted on Slashdot, figured I'd post them here as well, you can read the full original post here:
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/2007/05/bush-at
And before I'm accused of self-promotion, I have no ads on my Blog and I'm admitting its my own blog
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
Um, you guys ... dogs are dying from parvo. Time to get your priorities straight.
'Science: Average Good'
Historically Facism produces excellent science. Just look at Germany. During their short term under Hitler they developed the technologies that are the bedrock of all our modern technology. If you count all the scientists that were born of that period they get even more credit.
--Article I, Section 9, clause 3, Constitution of the United States
I hate this administration and believe that impeachment would be a victory for the US and the world, but I saw some of the page that you've written, and the 9-11 conspiracy stuff is killing your credibility. The WTC dropped due to physics. The intense heat destroyed the strength of the support beams, and that, coupled with the sheer weight of the floors above caused the building to fall. I don't give a shit what some crazy person, with no physics background, has to say. There was no planned demolition. I've seen some videos laying out the whole conspiracy theory, and it is bullshit. The same bullshit spewed by the same people who have wild theories about JFK and the moon landing. Well intentioned but too wound up with the idea. Look, fucked up shit happened, and then the administration took advantage. They are ruthless opportunists who are willing to send the American people to die for what? But they didn't set off the WTC. They merely took it as a great opportunity to pursue their goals.
Do you have a Physics background? I do, and I say that 3 extremely strongly built buildings falling symmetrically into piles of dust and small pieces cannot be explained by weakened support beams.
Such a collapse has never happened before or since in the history of the world, even when the top of a building burned for many hours.
I did NOT say the "administration" planned the World Trade Center building collapses. I only think that it was not a collapse due to heat. If there were a collapse due to heat, it would leave big pieces and not be symmetrical.