Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Retroactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the best-intentions dept.

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."

37 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. I welcome by EEPROMS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I too welcome our new United Soviet States of America fascist overlords

    1. Re:I welcome by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:I welcome by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't actually know anything about fascism, do you? Have you even read the Wikipedia entry on fascism? You should, it's reasonably good.

      Note: if you say in a fascist system the state controls corporations, it's roughly equivalent to saying that black is white. Literally, you've got it backwards.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:I welcome by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative
      You don't know much about fascism either, do you? You've probably seen it also called "corporatism", and decided that it equates to the "rule of corporations". Well, it doesn't - and the "corporations to which the original fascist term "corporatism" refers are not like what we call "corporations" today at all. The closest that would come to a fascist corporation would be a medieval guild.

      Setting that aside, GP was actually right. In a fascist state, the state is above the corporations, not the other way around. Which is not at all surprising, given that the fascist motto is "Everything for the State, nothing outside the State". Fascism is really nothing more than statism taken to the extreme for the sake of itself. In that sense, there isn't anything fascist about today's USA (or any other Western country). At best, you can complain about signs of authoritarianism and/or totalitarianism.

  2. Retro-what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Retroactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data


    So it's legal for companies to share my data, but not for me to share theirs?

  3. Bad idea by ari_j · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Bad idea by bsane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should it do that? These companies freely gave information when they knew it was illegal to do so. The blame here rests almost solely on the phone companies, they knew the law, they broke the law.

      Certain branches of government asking* for the information without warrents is pretty sleazy, but net illegal (that I know of).

      *whether or not they just asked or tried to blackmail remains to be seen, but the fact is several companies refused to give up the information.

    2. Re:Bad idea by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 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.
    3. Re:Bad idea by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that that is what the phone companies should do, but I was speaking only in terms of what the government should do if it wants to protect phone companies from such lawsuits. Your tax dollars should be dumped into a company to indemnify it from lawsuits (I don't see how this helps the phone company's bottom line any more than non-fraudulent insurance claims when your house burns down put you into a mansion) that your elected government pushed the company into, because the whole thing was (at least, in principle) your choice.

      The real solution is for the government not to bully phone companies for information it's not entitled to and for the phone companies to resist the government when it tries to. Again, I am speaking only in terms of a better solution than the exact one that the government wants, which is immunity for everyone involved in unlawfully searching private data. If everyone is immune, do you really think that you're better off? I'd rather have my (and 300 million other Americans') tax dollars go toward indemnifying the phone companies than have nobody held accountable for such abuses. At least that way, there would be 300 million Americans pissed off about paying for lawsuits that the government shouldn't be triggering in the first place and, no matter how little effect one vote has, it is clear that 300 million votes would convince the government to stop digging around in the wrong places.

  4. Ah, no ... by the+bluebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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
    1. Re:Ah, no ... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Interesting
      ... 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.

      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/
  5. Not surprising by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Come to Canada by CriminalNerd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come to Canada, where the government is too stupid to do anything.

    1. Re:Come to Canada by Stevecrox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  7. Pardon my French: Dear government, fuck off by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Also a way to admit guilt by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. This isn't about the past...... by budword · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. I bet Nixon would feel really dumb now by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:I bet Nixon would feel really dumb now by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
      Its because in the last century these tactics have been shown to be incredibly effective in achieving almost total control over the populace. Stalin and Hitler showed you could invent some fictious and terrible enemy to coerce the population into allowing you to create massive internal surveillance systems, gulags for dissenters, private armies out side the military, to suppress 'treasonous' dissent, to control the media, and by the time the duplicity was realised, they had so much power it was impossible to challenge them.

      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
    2. Re:I bet Nixon would feel really dumb now by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Politicians are our employees. We put them there. If they don't work as intended, fire them!

            I hate to be a traditionalist, but setting them on fire might achieve a better and faster result.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. It's only fair and right! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lesson for us all! When you help the Gestapo, the Gestapo will help you.

    1. Re:It's only fair and right! by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is true only if the Gestapo thinks it has further use for you.
      If not, they will not hesitate to leave you hanging in the wind.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
  12. Privacy? What Privacy? by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Privacy? What Privacy? by I_Voter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

  13. Cue the line from Star Wars by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I will make it legal"

  14. What should happen is impeachment of Cheney and Jr by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  15. Please don't... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Please don't... by ari_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does this story relate to bills of attainder or ex post facto laws?

    2. Re:Please don't... by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  16. Everything I need to know I learned from Civ: CTP by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  17. It raises some interesting questions by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  18. Who added this clause? by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.
    1. Re:Who added this clause? by visualight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe everyone who contributes a clause to a bill should be required to sign off on it before it's accepted.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  19. Too Stupid? by neoform · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  20. Isn't this unconstitutional? by BrewedInTexas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can someone please explain to me why this isn't considered unconstitutional?

  21. Our Constitution... by msauve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  22. One giant by Perp+Atuitie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One small step for security, one giant step for American Fascism. AKA Bush's legacy.