Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senator Slaps Down FISA Telecom Immunity

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the not-so-fast dept.

cleetus writes "Today Senator Chris Dodd decided to put a hold on the FISA bill, one of the provisions of which would have granted immunity to any telecom which, if found to have acted in good faith, violated U.S. laws in turning over customer data to the government. According to TPM Election Central, "By doing this, Dodd can effectively hold up the telecom immunity bill, because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward. One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting to allowing it to go to a vote." This throws a fairly big roadblock in front of this bill, covered by Slashdot earlier today."

18 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Nice to know... by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that out of 100 Senators, there is ONE that thinks that telecom carriers should not be above the law.

    1. Re:Nice to know... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No, he just cares about the Constitution and the Rule of Law. He is running for President, but even if he does not make it, he still wants the Constitution and the Rule of Law to be front and center in the world of political discussion.

      Link

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:Nice to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's one thing to help the FBI track down people you know are up to no good, it's another thing to just willfully comply with a program that has no oversight so no one knows exactly who is being spied on and for what purpose. Best of luck to you.

    3. Re:Nice to know... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well at least 1 democrat is actually doing something in the senate.

      Note to republicans: Dont get a boner over this comment, your band of idiots suck too.

    4. Re:Nice to know... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Poor Rush. He got caught with his big mouth flapping. And I'll bet you were incensed about the disrespect to General Betray-Us. But hey, that's different. Sorry, I have no respect or compassion for the fat windbag. He is now trapped by his own hypocrisy.

      I'll bet if Rush were caught molesting a 3 year-old his defense would be it was taken out of context.
      Well, you know context is everything. In the case where Rush referred to "phony soldiers", Rush was talking to a caller who called in about a particular person who claimed to have been an Army Ranger in Iraq and witnessed atrocities. The person in question was never an Army Ranger, never in Iraq and never even completed basic training. So, there is significant difference between the "General Betray-Us" ad (which was composed and claimed that General Petraeus was lying to Congress, before he had testified) and Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. Whether you like Rush or Moveon.org, it is important to know the facts before reaching judgement.
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. Good as far as it goes by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative
    The hold is quite likely to stick because Dodd is also backed by Arlen Specter and Leahey.

    Talk of the 'Senate' caving is somewhat overstated. Only the intelligence committee has cut a deal. Judiciary is still holding out for details of the crimes that the telcos are alleged to have committed.

    That said, it is probably nothing to get too excited about. I don't think that the Bush administration is going to giveup the information demanded, and I think the telcos will eventually get immunity but only after the information has been released under another administration.

    I expect some sort of truth and reconciliation commission in the end up.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  3. The Senators Past Voting Record by Satanboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case anyone was interested, here's a good summary of his past voting record:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chris_Dodd.htm

  4. Proxy war... by nebaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This whole thing seems to be a proxy war between the Legislative and Executive branches over the entire concept of FISA and illegality. It kind of puts the telco's in a bind. What do you do when first the Executive branch tells you to do something which is probably illegal, and which if you don't do you'll likely lose money (see QWEST), and if you do do you will face Congressional hearings, and possibly be punished for illegal activity. While I don't agree with what the telco's did, they are not the real law breakers here.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Proxy war... by shawnmchorse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well first you talk to your lawyer if you have one (I suspect the telcos do). And then you don't do it.

  5. If You Want the FISA Bill to Fail . . . by unamiccia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . consider sending some money Chris Dodd's way. I just did this afternoon (my first political contribution this election cycle) and it felt good. He's still not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, but the other candidates will be interested to see how bravery is rewarded. I would sure the hell like Chris Dodd's voice to be louder in the next days and weeks.

  6. Relevent US CODE by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Informative

    1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General;" (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801
    (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html#a_1
  7. Give him your support! by zestyping · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you care about this issue, show Chris Dodd your thanks RIGHT NOW.

    Call him at (202) 224-2823, send him a note, contribute to his campaign, or comment on the blog post. Show him you mean it.

    To encourage politicians to stand up for the things we believe in, we have to send a message, loud and clear.

    (I do not work for the Dodd campaign. I just believe that if you want to have influence, you've really got to show some reaction when something goes right.)

  8. Re:One Senator Can Stop a Bill? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Daily Kos link in TFS explains how it works. Bills generally get unanimous consent to be voted upon, even when people intend to vote against them. Dodd isn't giving his consent for this to come to vote. Since there's no unanimous consent to vote on the bill, someone needs to motion for a vote over it if they want to hold the vote.

    That motion to hold the vote then has to be debated and voted upon. A senator could filibuster that debate, and it takes 60% of all current Senators (not just 60% of those present to vote) to break the filibuster (referred to as cloture). Then the vote over the motion to vote on the bill can proceed if there's no filibuster or if the filibuster is broken. Only if a majority vote to hold the vote on the bill will the bill actually be voted upon.

    Once the bill itself is up for a vote, there's still the chance it could be defeated.

  9. looks like Reid might ignore the hold by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to this link, the majority leader has promised to bring the bill up for a vote regardless of Dodd's hold. Which is pathetic on so many fronts - the Republicans even whisper about obstructing a bill, and the Democratic majority buckles like a belt. But when another Democrat tries to stop a bill, he is ignored. Makes you wonder if Reid made a deal for something, and exactly what that deal is.

    It is simply unfathomable to be why so many Democrats don't take a firm stand against NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, etc. If they are principled, they would block it. If they only care about their political skins, they would still block Mr. 25% approval rating to make political points. Instead they buy shares in his messes by voting for them.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:Thank You! by jfern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This does have a damn thing to do with Osama.

    Bush started this illegal spying 6 months before he ignored the August 6th, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden determined to Strike in US.

  12. immunity needs to be off the table by crayz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here's the EFF describing what the telcoms were doing:

    We have evidence of an NSA-controlled room in the Folsom Street AT&T facilities in San Francisco. We have evidence that AT&T diverted copies of everyone's Internet traffic into that room. And we know that there's very sophisticated equipment in that room that is capable of doing real-time analysis analysis of the Internet traffic that is getting routed into there.
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion