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