Slashdot Mirror


Phone Companies Refuse to Give Congress Data on Spy Program

JohNNy1+4 writes "Several US telephone communications firms are refusing to answer the questions of a congressional panel about spying on American citizens. The panel is making an inquiry into Bush administration tactics in the years since 2001, but has been stymied by the administration's claim that releasing that information would be illegal. As a result Verizon, AT&T, and Qwest have declined to answer the panel's queries. '"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," AT&T Inc. General Counsel Wayne Watts said in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee that was released today by the panel.'"

29 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Don't blame me! by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was just following orders!

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:Don't blame me! by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > I was just following orders!

      "If AT&T has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear!"

      What's the over/under on cliches from tired totalitarian regimes for this session of testimony? I've got $10 riding in today's "Totalitarian Bingo" game and I still need a "Papers Please", "(n, canonically Five)-Year Plan" and a "Little (colored, canonically Red) Book" to win.

    2. Re:Don't blame me! by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or not comply and possible be sued by the government, loose contracts

      I don't quite see how they could be sued by the government. It's one thing if the gov't had the proper warrants, but in this case it's just giving in. Legally, they'd be in the right to not comply.

      As far as losing contracts...well...who ELSE would the government go to? It's not like a NASA contract and they have between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. They can't choose between phone providers. "Well, gee, AT&T won't let us tap their lines. But they own the lines. Oh well, we're boned."

    3. Re:Don't blame me! by quixote9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly. Verizon even said that they never checked the legality. I'm sure they'd have the same attitude if I spied on my sister because "my brother-in-law made me do it."

      Idiots.

      Venal idiots.

      Venal, cowardly, criminal idiots.

    4. Re:Don't blame me! by madmac40 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AT&T has EVERYTHING to hide. Think quid pro quo. The price to put ma bell back together again was participation in these ILLEGAL programs.

  2. I hate to say it, but they're right. by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a congressional panel doesn't legally have jurisdiction on a matter like this, then companies can't be expected to legally comply. If Congress wants oversight -- and why shouldn't it have this oversight? -- they should legislate it as such. They have the power to legislate, and they should use it.

    --
    [ think ]
    1. Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and why shouldn't it have this oversight?

      That is because it is their role. In order to legislate, they have to be able to determine the facts to adjust the legislation accordingly. That is why they have very broad investigative powers. Also it is the role of Congress to oversee the Executive, and if necessary investigate it and even remove the President, if the investigation warrants it. Note that the Constitution provides no means for the Executive to remove Congress.

    2. Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AFAIK, Congress may not be able to legally legislate oversight into this program as doing so would violate national security ...

      Oh boy. It is up to the Legislative branch to determine what does, and what does not, "violate national security". Not anyone else. They, according to the Constitution, set all the rules. Not the Executive, not the Judicial, not the military or intelligence agencies. No one else. Legislative branch is the only one with these powers.

      On top of which, if Congress just decided to write themselves into an oversight role ...

      Their oversight role is one of the key elements of the Constitution. They cannot "write themselves" in because that is their core function, they cannot "write themselves" out because that would require a Constitutional Ammendment.

    3. Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it would mean the end of the US as a Republic and an official beginning of the Empire.

      Which is precisely what happened to Ancient Rome. The Republic of Rome was effectively dead by the time Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus had fully consolidated their positions, but for the following several hundred years most Roman citizens politely pretended otherwise. I am not suggesting that this will happen to us, but it is wise to learn the lessons of history.

    4. Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless something changes drastically I fully expect a President to try this within the next 20 years.

      I think the likelihood of this is rather remote, and I'm very pessimistic. If this were to happen, it would have to happen in less than 500 days, as that's the amount of time GWB has left, and he's the one I'd expect to try something like this if his chosen successor doesn't win the '08 election and continue the Iraq War and neocon empire-building. But I still really doubt he'd do it, even if an anti-war candidate got elected.

      What I really think is going to happen is Hillary is going to be elected somehow (whether through a fair vote or not is another matter), and while looking like a Democrat, is actually going to continue the Iraq War, while also pushing a bunch of socialistic measures like healthcare (which will sound good on the surface, but in practice will be a disaster; socialized healthcare might work great in small homogenous European countries, but mark my words, it'll be a total disaster if they try it here at the Federal level, with the way we do things in this country), and also overturning the Second Amendment and banning most firearms. This will pave the way to even more restrictive governmental control over our everyday lives, and further enforcement and enlargement of the divide between the rich and the poor.

      The other scenario (which isn't independent of the above) is that the Dollar's value is going to plummet, and the economy will collapse even worse than the Great Depression.

      Personally, I think a lot of the above is going to happen within the next 20 years, and probably mostly within the next 10.

  3. What oversight dispute? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the US Constitution clear on the point of oversight, giving Congress the ability to investigate and even remove the president, but not the other way around?

    Or is the US truly near its nadir and soon "el Presidente" will be running everything, unopposed.

  4. How the...? by twifosp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's too bad these Reps won't have the balls to send subpoenaes to the CEO's of these companies, drag them in front of congress, and find them in contempt of congress for refusing to comply.

    The American government no longer matters. Welcome back to the Fuedal ages everyone! CEO's and boards are the land owners, lawyers are the knights. Get back to work you serfs.

    1. Re:How the...? by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I mean... yah.

      Have you ever looked at the term "Wage Slave" and thought of how apt it really is?

      I mean, sure, you can do what you want and say what you want. However, you like to eat don't you? Well, unless you raise and slaughter your own, that takes money. Want money? Well I guess you could start your own small buisness and drum up clients among your fellow free people... but realistically, for most, it means being someones wage slave.

      Wage slave show up at 8 am. Wage slave, wear clothes according to this policy.

      All the money is in the hands of the upper class, and the lower classes are lucky to slurp up what they can. Wages are balanced against social order, pay people just enough to be too comfortable to revolt.... have enough wage slaves under you, and you get the ear of congress. Thats not enough? Get together with a bunh of other upperclassmen and collectively get the congresscritters ear (its cleaner that way).

      Overall mass media is capable of keeping things too confusing and spreads the idea that its all rigged and your vote doesn't matter anyway. Put up two nearly identical puppets who are both wholly owned subsidieries of some federation of corperations.

      Make the people feel they are getting what they deserve because nobody is willing to stand up en mass, all while making issues too confusing and convoluted for anyone to get such a mass to stand up in the first place. Toss in a few wedge issues to get people a bit worked up over something that doesn't actually matter, to blow off the steam. And voi la.... you have a system of wage slavery that lets everyone pat themselves on the back for how free we are.

      Free....to do as we are told.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  5. In other words... by sweatyboatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our lawyers are pretty sure we broke the law and complied with an illegal order. But they're also pretty sure that Congress doesn't have the balls to confront the White House about this. So, complain all you want, but we'll being skiing in hell before we testify before Congress about this.

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  6. Scumbags by Experiment+626 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh sure, now they stand up to a request from the government and refuse to fulfill it on the grounds that it would be "illegal". Maybe they should have given that response to the NSA instead of saving it for Congress.

    1. Re:Scumbags by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they realize that they are in too deep to come clean and they must protect the party line at all costs.

  7. Premise wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole premise of this article is wrong.

    The program REQUIRES that they go to court if an American is involved. Just because "I read this on 'so-and-so' website", doesn't make those "they're spying on Americans without court orders" true. If you're buying into that, you're an idiot for being a sheep not finding out the facts for yourself. Reminds me of people that go on protests organized by "ANSWER", but don't know who "ANSWER" really is. Useful idiots.

  8. Contempt of congress? by Borealis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Arrest their CEOs for contempt. When the VPs fail to provide the data, arrest them too. Work on down the line.

    --
    Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
  9. Even Easier by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Very simple....

    Seems to me that if the law doesn't allow congress to pull their corperate charter for this, then the law needs to be fixed.

    Loss of limited liability would either sink them or change their tune right quick.

    -Steve

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  10. Re:Anyone else... by vil3nr0b · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it amusing those same companies steal from their customers and their customer's government with (insert dirty business finance trick here). Then they spy illegally on us. This is our country and these companies should be taken down for treason. Spy on our citizens and you deserve to be lined up against a wall and shot.

  11. These are not the same issue by sweatyboatman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I mean, obviously you're trolling, but I will reply. First, in the linked article it is alleged that Hillary Clinton listened to taped conversations picked up by her aides who were monitoring open cell phone communications. That's most likely illegal and so it would be the police, not Congress, who would need to investigate. Not sure what the statute of limitations is on such a crime, but I would imagine it's less than 15 years.

    So Bush did not have warrants, neither did Clinton why does the congress not investigate every presidency back to Nixon?


    If the story is to be believed, the aides in question were not part of the federal government's spy agencies. There's quite a bit of difference between two dorks recording whatever cell communications float into range of their receiver and the CIA/FBI/NSA strong-arming the phone companies to let them listen in on every call, text-message, email, chat, etc... that happens in America.

    Also, keep in mind that beyond whether the Bush administrations actions were legal, Congress is currently drafting a law which will delimit the scope and breadth of the CIA/NSA/FBI's powers to spy on communication that travels through American telephone providers. In order to make a sensible law, they need a full understanding of what wiretapping has occurred, what results it has achieved, and how the existing laws have been interpreted by the current agencies.
    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
  12. What would TJ say? by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  13. Tells a lot about these companies by nickmalthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That they ignored the request of the Congress (the will of the people) and instead chose to hide behind the president and so called state secrets. Shame on them and their disrespect for our Republic. They apparently believe that the president will protect them from punishment for their criminal acts. Congress establishes the laws in this country and as representatives of the American people they have every right to make sure the laws are carried out as intended. What is it that the executive branch and these companies are up to that they are so scared of revealing to Congress? According to our president only the terrorists have something to hide from the government so by extension does hiding information from Congress make the president and these companies terrorists?

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  14. Big surprise by smashp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Phone Companies are letting the government use their equipment to spy on Americans. In Return they mega corporations will get support from certain members of congress and the executive for supposed "Pro Business" regulations. These "regulations" will cement these corporations and give them government supported monopolies and allow the Telecoms to govern and regulate themselves. In Essence, they have entered into an unholy alliance with the US government. Greed is enabling, Power is corupting. You are witnessing the Rise of Pure Fascism in the US.

  15. Re:Ah...Yes wiretapping by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I find 2 things interesting. First, I get a 404 File Not Found on that link. Second, the name of the file, gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html, which highly suggests a Republican hatchet job coming out just in time to smear the elections before the campaign season gets fully underway. Kind of reminds me of 'the Arkansas Project' where the GOP went digging for dirt against Clinton in an effort to knock him out of office.

    The Democrats are hardly innocents, either. St Hillary was Democratic counsel to the Watergate Hearings when they tried to oust Nixon and was so fired up on getting an impeachment rammed through she couldn't see straight. Strange that when Bill came under the gun for perjury she was the first to cry 'Witch hunt'.

    While I have no problems with politicians indulging in extramarital sex while in office, I do have a problem when they commit perjury about it. Perjury is a felony, plain and simple. Bill was under oath both times. He lied once. For perjury, once is enough. The impeachment trial was a sham, everybody knew the vote would come down along party lines, politics overriding the issue, which made any possible impeachment of Bush for unconstitutional powergrabs out of the question, the spin being 'We went after your boy, you're just wanting revenge'. A shocking display of American politics at its worst.

    What I'd love to see, and I know it's just wishful thinking, is a few real candidates for this goaround. Ain't gonna happen, though. Real candidates haven't won an election since Ike.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  16. Re:Ah...Yes wiretapping by apparently · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, I read it, and sweet christ - are you serious? You're pitting an alleged incident against one we know to have occurred? How much does one make Trolling for Dollars these days?

  17. next step: the fifth amendment by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1, Insightful

    let's see if Congress is willing to enforce their subpoenas. If they are the telco execs will almost certainly take the fifth amendment.

  18. Re:Ah...Yes wiretapping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, nobody cares about what problems you had with Clinton and your attempts to derail the conversation.

    We'll all be laughing our asses off when you right wing nutjobs realize how much power you gave Hillary.

  19. Both Sides? by crhylove · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both sides of WHAT, exactly? Both sides of THE SAME SIDE? We haven't had a reasonable of the people, for the people, by the people government since the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I'd say it goes back even farther, to the creation of the Federal Reserve, and since we have had a standing army. But of course, to stick with ideals isn't realistic, right? We're SUPPOSED to allow a monstrous war criminal executive to impose it's will across the other two branches and lie to the American public without any repercussions.

    It's almost as if the schools haven't been teaching anything, and nobody here has read the constitution.

    Both parties are owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations anyway, so arguing the "both sides" thing is a horrendous straw man. I don't think "both sides" of Dow and Exxon give two shits about the liberty of the American citizenry, the safety of our constitutional democracy, or the longevity of this country without a violent bloody revolution. I feel they assume that Fox news can blather more lies and the people will just continue taking Zoloft and buy it.

    History has proven these theories wrong already though, and there are PLENTY of examples from the past besides Rome. If you (like me) were not informed about them in public school, maybe you should get yourself to the Library on your own time, and READ for a second.

    I'll wait here, screaming in the vacuum with my +1 nobody gives a shit.
    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.