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."
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.
No, no, no Come to the UK sure every single moment of your life is probably on a camera but no one is watching, because of that babe on screen three, even if they are nothing will happen as the government spawns anouther think tank to deal with something that wasn't really an issue.
Quite, the story is incorrect. The Bush administration is making the proposal. Congress is not going to pass it. So the proposal means no more than a flame on Slashdot does, probably less.
Bush could use his pardon power but that would mean admitting the original illegality and the right of Congress to control the actions of the President. Under the 'unitary executive' theory the administration has been pushing the President has permanent dictatorial powers and can break any law he chooses.
Given that the Attorney General is facing impeachment for obstruction of justice, lying to Congress and facilitating the corruption of at least ten Republicans in Congress, it does not look very likely that Congress is going to give Bush additional powers at this time. More likely they add illegal wiretapping to the Gonzalez impeachment charges.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
In a Fascist system the State controls Corporations. Here it's the other way around most of the time. We have a Corporate Republic now, though the end result with regards to our civil liberties is the same.
The US has been at this for years albeit in a milder form than recent times. For example Mr Rumsfeld has been a leading fear mongering hysteric re the evil Soviets who were gagging to kill us all with their 'bomber gap' with which they planned to carpet bomb the US, then it was a 'missile gap' with which they planned to nuke the US into the stone, then multitudes of tanks that were going to steamroller through Europe etc. End result was the US had vastly more bombers and missiles than the Soviets, so there actually was a gap, just not the one you were led to believe.
Mr Rumsfeld and his fellow hawks were clearly resourceful men because despite the evil terror of the Soviet Union rather inconveniently collapsing on them they quickly recovered the situstion with the vast global terror network that is Al Quaida. Unfortunately with the ascention of Al Quaida to public enemy no 1 there also seems to be a greater willingness to remove civil rights and liberties.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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.
IMO: The separation of powers only slows things down. All three branches can agree on one thing - those pesky citizens get in the way, and cause problems.
While I will accept that the SOP structure slows down radical change, it doesn't stop change. We should remember that it works both ways! People standing on a steep hill of tar will be less likely to slide down, but if they do slide down then getting back up is harder.
The following is my favorite example of slow but radical "constitutional" change.
Our (U.S.) basic defense of constitutional rights was meant to be the jury.
BACKGROUND
Alexander Hamilton views in Federalist Paper No. 83
The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.,
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger!
"I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution."
If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."
A Glorious Tradition
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification,
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California is now allowing judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
...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.Can someone please explain to me why this isn't considered unconstitutional?
The courts have held since at least 1798 that the constitutional restriction on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal laws. The Constitutional Dictionary has some more specifics.