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?
... 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.
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.
A lesson for us all! When you help the Gestapo, the Gestapo will help you.
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.
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
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!
You refering to a government bailout of the phone companies if they get sued?????????
Why should my tax dollars be dumped into a company to better their bottom line just because somebody lawfully sued them and won? They don't wanna get sued by the citizens they provide a service for, they should tell the government to go piss up a rope with their illegal requests and take it public.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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
One small step for security, one giant step for American Fascism. AKA Bush's legacy.