Slashdot Mirror
Telecom Companies Seek Retroactive Immunity
kidcharles writes "Newsweek reports that a secretive lobbying campaign has been launched by telecommunications companies who are seeking retroactive immunity from private lawsuits over their cooperation with the NSA in the so-called 'terrorist surveillance program.' Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has claimed that lawsuits could 'bankrupt these companies.' The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against AT&T over their cooperation in the domestic spying program. EFF legal director Cindy Cohen said of the lobbying campaign, 'They are trying to completely immunize this [the surveillance program] from any kind of judicial review. I find it a little shocking that Congress would participate in the covering up of what has been going on.'"
Why is anyone surprised Congress would be hushing this up? If the companies get sued for huge sums, then where will they get money to bribe congressmen?
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
First, ALL companies participated in this program. To not do so, would have jeopardized their gov contracts. A major reason why the gov spreads the wealth around is because then the companies are beholden to them. Imagine what would have happened to Verizon or QWest(yes, qwest did not par ticpate in a few minor parts) if they had not? Not only would they have been denied future contracts, but they would have lost major gov contracts and probably a number of other contracts dealing with companies who are very dependant on the feds. For QWest alone, they would have lost no less than 20% of their business. Verizon would have lost a great deal more. What is shocking is that this is in the open.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You're not really understanding the situation. AT&T didn't say, "Hey, let's spy on our customers, and ask Bush if we can do it." That's not how his happened.
What actually happened was King George II told AT&T and other companies: Let us into your networks. We say so. We have the guns. If you don't comply, then you'll be branded as terrorists.
And yes, you can say that AT&T and such should not have complied, but nobody outside of the top brass at AT&T know what they were threatened with. Maybe they were given payment, maybe they weren't. Of course, the government won't release any of that information, so nobody will ever know.
I don't respond to AC's.
I find it a little shocking that Congress would participate in the covering up of what has been going on
Then either you don't live in the US, or you are under the age of 12. Congress is as crooked as any major corporation, and anytime they want to do something like this they just duplicate The Bush Maneuver..."its for National Security".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It's actually in the long-term best interests of all companies to *not* have this immunity.
This just enables a form of government interference in corporations that is even worse than regulatory laws. Regulations get made in the open and are subject to lobbying and court rulings. Whereas the NSA warrantless spying amounts to the commandeering of the corporate assets and procedures and is enforced by secret laws that (apparently) cannot be challenged in court in any reasonable way.
Even with recompensation that returns a profit on investment, this is a bad deal for corporate independence.
Everyone else is already calling BS, and I agree. The companies colluded voluntarily, whether it was to preserve contracts or not; greed's not a reason to break the law.
I'll also point out that the only way you'll ever be able to ensure that the government won't be able to do this again, at least so easily, is to crucify the companies who helped them do it and didn't call foul loudly and publicly. Set that sort of precedent, and they won't have willing accomplices again. Moreover, it'll be for -business- reasons, the only universal ones in a capitalist society.
Bush already introduced a retrospective amnesty act in the form of the Military Commissions Act which exempted Bush and those working for him from prosecution under the War Crimes Act for acts committed before the commencement of the MCA.
As for bills of attainder (legislation outlawing a person or organisation rather than their actions), try declaring yourself a member of Al-Qaeda in the USA and see how long it takes before you are detained (or carted off to Guantanamo Bay).
Keep up. Your head of state declared two years ago that "[the U.S. Constitution]'s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Acting like the devil's advocate, the government is special. If my ISP recieves a legitimate order to hand over information (warrant) or spy on me (wiretap) they'd do it and what would be a crime if they did it for anyone else is accepted as legal because the investigative power of the government trumphs normal privacy law. Thus you can't act on the AT&T case without answering the question "Does the NSA have authorization to launch this program?" because if they do, that legitimate order would be immunity. This is clearly a ploy to avoid raising that question in court. The NSA almost certainly had authorization through some executive order from Bush, which is getting to the real core of the issue.
The real issue is the ability of the executive branch to create programs not founded in law (Congress) nor ruled by law (the courts) under the guise of national security. If Bush is allowed to prevent the courts from reviewing this program then the separation of powers has failed - they're all wielded by the executive branch. "Law" is created by executive order, they operate it and noone reviews it. If they really want the NSA to spy on everyone, put it in law. What's sad is that if they named it something like the Anti-Terrorism Investigation Powers Act it'd probably get passed, too.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings