Slashdot Mirror
FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records
An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports that the FCC won't be investigating the phone record disclosures by communications companies under US government pressure. Despite a congressional request for that probe, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin quashed the inquiry based on comments from National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. 'At issue are reports last year that some big telephone companies allowed the U.S. government access to millions of telephone records for an antiterrorism program. The reports have prompted scrutiny by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, the chairman of a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee, asked Martin to investigate. Markey, of Massachusetts, said McConnell's stance was "unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program."'"
re:""unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program.""
Should read "unsurprising given that this administration is aware that the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of spineless pussies".
There you go.
I'll believe they [the big companies and the government together in this case] are sincere about my privacy when they agree to store my personal information on *MY* disk space. Whenever they want to look at my personal information they need to tell me why, and I should have the right to say yea or nay to that request. Right now they claim that my personal information belongs to them, and there's no way for me to know anything about what they are doing with it.
In this case, my phone records should be stored on my own equipment, and if they need to doublecheck it, they can show probable cause and get a search warrant. The records can be signed to prevent me from tampering with them, but they have no good reason to own those records.
The *REAL* problem is that the Dubya's government and the big companies want to own our souls.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Republicans too, they may be the same party, but when they controlled both houses and requested details of the various programs, they got the f*** off treatment too.
They're all frightened of being called soft on terror if they don't do whatever the faction in the Whitehouse says (I'm not going to say Bush, because he's some sort of figure head for them, not a person in control, a mascot to rally around).
If Congress can't exert any power in situations like this, what CAN it do?
.. don't use a landline then or a "subscription" mobile :)
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
.. Amdocs , an Israel company and has ALL records perfect for phone data mining. Great for the intelligence community. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUXFHON_v9o Still want to have a SUBSCRIPTION service where they can know everything about you? I strongly recommend VoIP abroad or subscriptionless mobiles if you value your privacy.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Oh, darn. Gosh, I don't have any mod points to mod you off-topic. Golly gee!
The FCC has been heavily biased toward the policies of this administration, at least while under Michael Powell's leadership. Now that the FCC has given up their chance to fake an investigation, a more respectable organization can perform a thorough, honest investigation.
Congress is going to respond to this continued emasculation with a painstakingly measured combination of harsh words and sulking.
Someone had to shut down the investigation. Also full credit would have been given for a token investigation that found no wrongdoing, had vague and inconclusive results, and requested more funding for The War Against Terror. What ain't gonna happen, under any circumstances / regime / administration, is The Right Thing (TM).
The congressional investigators report that every time they approach a new agency about possible wrongdoings in the agency's purview, they find that the Bush administration has already bullied the agency head to toe the line and only parrot lines about "important national security implications" that preclude them taking any action... It's as if the administration somehow knew in advance who the congressional investigators were trying to reach, strangely enough.
The simple fact is that talking on any phone, cellular in particular, is not private. If you think it is you are delluding yourself. As a comm tech in the 80's we routinely monitored voice traffic for amusement purposes. The things you hear are mind boggling! People talk on the phone about the most private and illegal things. Why oh why would anyone ever discuss something on an unsecure medium that they don't want anyone to know is beyond me. I remember years ago some congressional members cell call with some embarrassing content was recorded and made public. Yeah...it was illegal and the people that recorded it were charged....but still, why would anyone thinks that a phone call is private. It doesn't matter whether the administration and congress ban monitoring or not. It will still happen. The only difference then is it wont be admissable in court. But then if you're a member of a terrorist organization bent on death and destruction the people listening are planning on sending you to a higher court. :)
Removing the old useless cruft of the winner-takes-all voting system would be a good step towards break up the two party regime and introducing new dynamics.
Too bad this would undermine the power of the two big parties, so they have no interest in changing the status quo.
Maybe getting a formal refusal to investigate from the FCC is somehow a necessary preliminary to getting to the bottom of this nonsense. I hope so.
Come on folks let's move on this. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there are people out there who will be only to happy to testify in detail about what has been done and why and are just waiting for someone to ask. .
National Security? Betcha not. Anyone with a very long memory will recall that the Nixon administration's first ploy in trying to elude Watergate was to invoke National Security. After that was laughed off, they switched to executive privilege. Have we learned nothing? The best way to deal with miscreants in high places is to expose the facts about what they have been doing to the light of day.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
This complacency is the problem. We have the right to expect privacy to be the default. We have the right that it is respected except in the most grave of situations. Lots of things will still happen, people will be mugged. Should we just say, "you shouldn't have been out that late." You should have been fired and prosecuted for your "amusement." Your "amusement" is a lack of respect for others.
...After all, if the telcos didn't do anything wrong, they should have nothing to hide.
"Talk to our guy over at NSA, the one you gave the special clearance to. I think those Dems might be up to something. Let's see who they've been talking to."
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
(n/t)
you had me at #!
I think the issue is that the FCC is not accountable and responsive and representative of the American people. They don't answer to us. Their priority is not what is best for the citizens.
If the geeks ever get political power, the FCC Commissioners will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I don't disagree. It was wrong. Still and all.....privacy is an illusion. You can bitch all you want but the fact is that without some form of encryption there is no secure communications. From bored comm techs to overly enthusiastic FBI agents and NSA operatives, there is always someone listening. You can expect privacy but you aren't going to get it.
We don't need to get political power. We just need to get BFG9000s.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
How much trust do you have for the average person on the street? Would you trust them to bring your lost wallet back to you with all the cash in it you had? The problem with Government, with Police, with anyone in power, is that they are humans, with all the same flaws as you and me, and then some. Many are nosey, greedy, and most of all, attracted to power and all that it entails. I'm not saying this is universal. The question isn't "what am I trying to hide?" It's "why do you want to know?" Imbalance of knowledge=Imbalance of power
SOMEONE needs to remind the government (including the FCC) that THEY work for US - and that WE want this investigated.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I love it when posts get moderated up simply due to extensive formatting, when it's clear the moderators haven't actually read or considered the inane, ridiculous content.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Seems to me I recall a government attitude of: If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to hide. Only the terrorist need to be worried about surveillance and auditing...
Privacy and safety are both illusions. And we do bad things to the people who disillusion us.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
"People talk on the phone about the most private and illegal things"
Yeah, I've heard that people will even be so crazy as admit to committing felonies, like listening in on others' phone conversations. Can you believe it??
Ron Paul said it himself when he mentioned that the US government should be investigated from the outside in.
Libertas in infinitum
The problem lies in the fact that information given without a warrant by a third party is perfectly legal. If I, as a federal agent, request information, the company or individual can give that information freely of their own volition. As long as I do not threaten, nothing "underhanded" has happened. And that info can be used in court or any other way I wish. It is only when a individual or entity declines to provide the requested information that a warrant is needed.
Many big corps and individuals feel that they must give the information based on pressure to seem patriotic or just to better serve the bottom line. They give this information perfectly willingly. What is needed to stop this is laws with harsh penalties. The problem is that too many folks are view privacy issues as some sort of philosophical, ideological, or conceptual debate. How then can you determine when privacy is violated if there is no substantial definition.
The data that companies have on a person is not owned by that person, it is owned by the company. And that is the essence of the problem. What we need is laws that allow the individual to retain that information as their personal property, not the company. The individual may choose to allow that the use of that property by the company for purposes of conducting business with that company, but outside of the normal and reasonable activity of commerce, that property cannot be used with out the individual giving up his various rights (ie property rights of ownership and use, the right to remain silent, etc.)
You can refuse the police access to your dwelling because it is your property, unless they have a warrant. If you rent, then you have less rights, because the owner can decide to allow the police inside. But without a warrant, they cannot enter the building that you hold the title to without permission. If we had laws in place that forced companies to hold your information and personal data without having to relinquish ownership to that company, then this would not be an issue. This would allow the problem to once again be a constitutional issue of "illegal search and seizure".
Mind you, this is just a simplistic way I have defined the idea, but I think you should be able to see the advantageous (and disadvantageous) to such a law. As it stands, unless the administration open threatened the companies, nothing illegal has taken place.
He was a lawyer from the Bush/Chenney '00 election campaign and his wife is one of Chenney's aides. He is by all accounts, in the pocket of the president.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I would be willing to settle for a party that's "soft on terrorism", if only we could get rid of the party that actively encourages it with Al Qaeda's star recruitment poster boy, George Bush. Don't you know they must have pics of him in an Uncle Sam outfit all over the Middle East saying, "I want YOU to to join Islam's most popular terrorist front!"
Sounds like people who write private matters in their emails.