Slashdot Mirror


Lawmakers Delay Telco Immunity Vote

eweekhickins writes "The US Senate Judiciary Committee delayed a scheduled vote on whether telecommunications carriers should be granted immunity for cooperating with the White House's domestic spying program of telephone wiretapping and e-mail surveillance. The panel hopes to vote on the provision as soon as next week. Senator Pat Leahy said that immunity would make it impossible for Americans to seek redress for 'illegal' violations of their privacy." The article points out the confused state of the immunity measure: the House is considering a version of FISA renewal that has no immunity; in the Senate, two committees are working on different versions, one with immunity, one without.

9 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Judiciary Committees by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 4, Informative
  2. Mum?!? by iknownuttin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FTFA: Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden all oppose granting immunity to the carriers.

    Good for them!

    Other Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have not stated a position on immunity for telecom carriers. Republican presidential hopefuls have also been mum on the issue.

    You chicken shit sons (and daughter) - of - bitches!

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  3. Rule of Law. by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the telecoms are granted immunity by the government then the USA will no longer be under the rule of law. If it comes to pass, some people or organizations will be above the law and in my opinion that is not what the US should be about. What's next Bush, dictator for life?!?

    --
    Shh.
  4. Don't Get It by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would anyone vote for immunity for the telcos when we don't even know what they did wrong? Who in their right mind would excuse someone without knowing the crime?

    -Grey

  5. Re:Other side by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People were hanged at Nuremburg despite saying "I was only following orders".

    There comes a time where you have to do what's RIGHT, even if you have to go to jail for it.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Doesn't matter by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if they aren't granted immunity, I can guarantee you that no one is going to be arrested. No one in a corporation is ever arrested, no matter how many white collar crimes they commit, unless those crimes directly affect the pocketbook of other white collar citizens (e.g. Enron). I realized this the day it came to light that Sony was installing rootkits on people's machines without their permission, and yet no one was even talking about arrests... and yet, if a fourteen year old was installing rootkits on thousands or millions of machines without their owners' permission, he would be arrested in a heartbeat and we'd be subjected to a month of scary and retarded Dateline specials on those evil hackers.

    Similarly, if a fourteen year old phreaker records people's calls without their consent, he is arrested immediately. If a corporation does it, it at best merits a class-action lawsuit (which is the most we're going to see here... IF immunity isn't granted.) The fact that the corporations in this case were doing the bidding of the state certainly doesn't hurt them, but it's foolish to suppose to begin with that corporations are ever held to the same standard of justice as non-affiliated individuals.

  7. Wrong by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why do people fall for this garbage? If telecoms are granted carte blanche immunity now it prevents a more reasonable immunity deal later which would have a chance of exposing what appears to be significant wrongdoing on the part of the government. The motivation behind telecom immunity isn't really to let telecoms off the hook as much as it is to prevent stuff from coming out in court about what the government did. There are many things we'll never find out about if Dianne Feinstein helps usher this crap through. (I phoned her office at 202-224-3841 to complain. That's 202-224-3841. If enough Californians call 202-224-3841 maybe she'll change her mind since her constituents are overwhelmingly against this. But probably not- Feinstein is really horrible and is probably not running for reelection when her term expires years from now.)

    Telecoms don't go to prison like you or I would. At most they incur legal expenses- probably less than a day's operating expenses- it's the cost of doing business. And they could have easily told the government to screw themselves. They were cooperating with these patently illegal requests even before 9/11.

    Telecom immunity is obstruction of justice enshrined into law.

  8. Re:Other side by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bullshit. The law is the law, and that law makes it pretty damn clear that spying on U.S. citizens, without first demonstrating to a judicial authority probable cause for the issue a warrant authorizing such spying, is wrong. Period. This being the case, a business, and/or those responsible for operating that business, is/are responsible for obeying this well-established law, REGARDLESS of who asked them to break it. Their answer SHOULD have been, "No warrant - no wiretap. Sorry."

  9. Stupid by phalse+phace · · Score: 4, Informative
    So far, it seems like it's either give the telcos immunity or have taxpayers pay for any legal expenses or damages awarded against the telcos.

    Specter suggested granting "indemnification" to telephone companies who allegedly cooperated with the government's surveillance regimes in violation of federal privacy laws. That would mean lawsuits could go forward, but taxpayers would be responsible for covering any legal expenses or damage awards against the communications companies. Damages could run into the tens of billions of dollars if the suits are successful, according to Senate Intelligence committee estimates.