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.
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).
The problem will not be solved by replacing Republicans with Democrats. It will only change the rationale. Dems will probe for child molesters and music pirates instead of terrorists, but they're not going to loosen government's grip.
The problem will be solved when Americans finally ask, "How the fuck can government regulate our telephone lines when we have a First Ammendment?"
I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests. Getting the big money out of politics would be a very good thing, though I don't see any easy path to doing so... However, there is a difference in relative priorities, and it is clear that the neo-GOP is completely focused on the money, whereas the old GOP had and the Democrats still have some other principles as well.
Since it is very clear that privacy considerations have zero traction with the current American government, we basically have two options: Can we evolve in a more constructive direction (which means the neo-GOP must be removed first of all), or does there have to be a violent revolution? It seems very clear that certain governments (especially in Europe) are deliberately trying to evolve in the direction of favoring individual rights and privacy. If you believe that freedom and democracy confer competitive advantages, and if you think they are linked to such rights as privacy, then you must conclude that they are moving in a constructive and more competitive direction.
Revolution? Well, sometimes violent revolutions cannot be avoided. The problem there is that the outcome is never certain. On the average, the new systems are better than the old ones--but that's a big historical average, and there are plenty of times when things get worse before they get better. The one thing certain about a real revolution is that lots of people get hurt, even killed. I don't like that, and you can't convince me it's the only way to make things better. We're human beings, not mindless beasts that can only evolve mindlessly.
Me, I'd prefer to believe that just getting back to the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be a big step forward after the last few years. Some of the real Republicans might work for that, but not the neo-GOP politicians that still control what's left of the GOP.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Applause at the State of the Union?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
If Congress can't exert any power in situations like this, what CAN it do?
They can, but they won't.
You make a mistake in thinking congress actually objects to the wholesale stripping away of our privacy, to the war in Iraq, to all the crap they've scapegoated Bush with for the last six years. What a great game! Last week you hated Bill, this week you hate George, next week you hate Hillary, but we just keep going back to the same used car dealership so one of them can rape us week after week after week...
Yes, few people in US history can come close to Bush for outright in-your-faceness about how frequently they wipe their asses with the constitution. But we need to avoid presuming that he has done anything new - He just lacks the saavy to hide his abuses.
If congress so desired, they could end all this tomorrow. They could end the war, they could end the spying programs, they could end our use of torture and our continued illegal detainment of both foreigners and US citizens, they could end Bush's presidency. They have that power. But they won't use it, because they all want the same things that Bush does - Further consolidation of power and money into their own families and friends.
The only part of domestic wiretapping they actually object to involves who gets to listen. They want in on the action, and resent Bush keeping them outside the loop.
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
Or, you could ask yourself. If this is the amount of stuff they've been unable to hide, how much have they actually succesfully hidden from you? Bush may lack the savvy to hide his shady dealings, but much of his staff doesn't, don't presume you know half of it.
Using the power of the purse to shutdown the war and domestic spying programs? Nope, their fingers are just as deep in those coffers. Enacting new legislation to hold the myriad bells accountable for their violations of privacy in Fed Court? Nope, Repubs have the Supreme Court on lockdown now too. Kindling?
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!
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.