Telecom Immunity Showdown in the Senate Today

CPeanutG writes "A make-or-break moment for telecom immunity has arrived — after months of back-room committee-meetings, the FISA bill will finally reach the Senate floor on Monday! Unfortunately, a previously-reported version of the bill that grants telecom immunity will be presented to the Senate on Monday morning. The clock is ticking. Write your Senators now."

Comments

I did, but it won't matter.

[FatSean]

One of my senators is the once-RINO, now 'Independent' Joe Lieberman. That little rat-faced turd is a cancer on my state, but he has perfected pandering to key groups and so continues to be elected.

Phaf!

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[MightyYar]

He was a Democrat - not a Republican, and he's one of the only politicians that I can stand listening to.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[Foobar of Borg]

That little rat-faced turd is a cancer on my state, but he has perfected pandering to key groups and so continues to be elected.

I thought it was interesting how he lost the Democratic primary, ran as an independent, and then won while the person who ran as the Republican got only about 5% of the votes. Lets you know who he is really representing.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[MightyYar]

Yes, it's a real shame when an entire state overwhelmingly embraces it's Senator.

He got only 33% of the Democrat vote, though, which is a shame since Lamont was a wing-nut. He got 70% of the Republican vote, and over 50% of the independents.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[Foobar of Borg]

Yes, it's a real shame when an entire state overwhelmingly embraces it's Senator. He got only 33% of the Democrat vote, though, which is a shame since Lamont was a wing-nut. He got 70% of the Republican vote, and over 50% of the independents.

I wasn't arguing that he didn't win the election (although "overwhelmingly embraces" is overstating his case just a bit). I was simply agreeing with OP that he was only pretending to be a Democrat, as evidenced by who ultimately supported him. The Republicans liked him much better than they liked their own candidate.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[MightyYar]

I guess I don't really understand the criticism. He only lost the primary by like 2 percentage points. He was a Democratic senator for 3 terms prior. He seems to vote with the Dems on all of the domestic agenda, departing with them only once in a while - mostly for foreign policy (and the stupid censorship stuff he does).

In a three-party race, getting the majority of the vote and not just the plurality is about as overwhelming as it gets. You have to remember that your average Connecticut Republican is not going to be the stereotypical Nascar fan with "Rush Is Right" emblazoned on the bumper of his pickup. Voting for a moderate like Lieberman is not really much of a stretch. Also, IIRC, the Republican was embroiled in some sort of gambling scandal.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[DavidTC]

And, of course, he's endorsing fucking McCain in the 08 election.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[MightyYar]

Yeah, uh, well, that DOES sort of derail my argument a bit :)

It feels better once you realize that both parties are almost exactly the same except on issues that don't actually matter.

Re:I did, but it won't matter.

[Foobar of Borg]

It feels better once you realize that both parties are almost exactly the same except on issues that don't actually matter.

Well, I wouldn't argue with you there. The Democrats are really just "Republican-Lite" if you look at what they actually accomplish (as opposed to what they profess). They even get us into useless wars that enrich defense contractors (like the war in Yugoslavia) that we have no business getting involved in. They are just smaller wars, without nearly to total cluster-fuckage that we have been getting lately.

Nice exclamation point

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Now tell me why I should care.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[abburdlen]

simply stated if you care about any of your rights it's important.
Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

While the executive branch is more at fault for strong arming the telecos I don't think the public is well served by granting amnesty for ignoring the law.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[KDR_11k]

While the executive branch is more at fault for strong arming the telecos I don't think the public is well served by granting amnesty for ignoring the law.

Also telling people "if we ask you to do something illegal that doesn't mean we won't punish you later" is a good way to make it harder for govt branches to get illegal help from private entities.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[Anonymous Coward]

This basically like your local police officer, lacking the basis for a warrant, asking a someone else to break into your home to plant cameras. Hey, government, you cannot pay someone else to break the law for you!!

Which is really what these bills are about: It is not giving teleco's amnesty so much as giving the executive branch amnesty for asking someone else to do an illegal thing on their behalf.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[ArcherB]

simply stated if you care about any of your rights it's important.
Fourth Amendment: ...

While the executive branch is more at fault for strong arming the telecos I don't think the public is well served by granting amnesty for ignoring the law.

That would be an excellent point if the Bill of Rights dealt with what companies can and can not do. Unfortunately, it only deals with government. Citizens and corporations are not bound by the BoR.

So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information they own to the feds without a warrant, then no law has been broken.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[postbigbang]

The Bush/Cheney paranoia is exactly what this amendment was designed to thwart. I do not believe that the Congress has the authority to make this bill pass, as it prima facie violates the US Constitution. Bush can grant a limited amount of immunity, but the amount of immunity that can be granted to civil liability is unknown and has little precedent to go by.

It's my fervent hope that we can live freely again, and not be subject to the whimsies of madmen.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[abburdlen]

ArcherB wrote:

That would be an excellent point if the Bill of Rights dealt with what companies can and can not do. Unfortunately, it only deals with government. Citizens and corporations are not bound by the BoR.

So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information they own to the feds without a warrant, then no law has been broken.

oh okay. They didn't do anything illegal, we can drop the amnesty provisions, they don't need them. Right?

Re:Nice exclamation point

[dragonsomnolent]

But (as a AC posted in response to a sibling of your comment), the police can't just ask a private citizen (or even a P.I.) to illegally wiretap a phone just because they couldn't get a warrant. The person who placed said wiretap could(should) still face charges, and by all decent standards the "evidence" should be tossed as well (IANAL, YMMV)

Re:Nice exclamation point

[Elemenope]

IIRC, if the gov't asks them to eavesdrop on a citizen, they become an agent of the state, and as such cannot legally abridge 4th amendment protections. The Government cannot end-run the protections by asking someone else to do it for them. If they could, the Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper its printed upon.

If on the other hand, the telco volunteered without prompting such information, then yes, there would be no violation. That is soooooooo not the case here.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[misanthrope101]

What liberal blog did you copy that crap from?

Re:Nice exclamation point

[ArcherB]

But (as a AC posted in response to a sibling of your comment), the police can't just ask a private citizen (or even a P.I.) to illegally wiretap a phone just because they couldn't get a warrant. The person who placed said wiretap could(should) still face charges, and by all decent standards the "evidence" should be tossed as well (IANAL, YMMV)

Sorry, AC's are below my threshold.

Charges? For what? Is there a law that says that telco's can't tap a line. For that matter what is the penalty for illegally obtaining evidence? IANAL either, but from what I gather, the penalty is that the evidence can't be used in a criminal case. Since the government's goal is espionage, not conviction, I don't see what the cost is.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[KDR_11k]

If we can't hold the executives responsible at least we can make sure noone will ever trust them again when they promise "don't worry, you won't be held responsible".

Re:Nice exclamation point

[moeinvt]

The point is that the telecom companies more than likely violated their stated policies regarding the privacy of their customers. This amnesty provision is stating that the victims of said privacy violations cannot sue the telecom companies.

If theses companies and their employees did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide . . . right? Why should the government pass a law granting them amnesty?

Re:Nice exclamation point

[KDR_11k]

Provided it's legal for the telco to eavesdrop on calls, that is. Isn't there a law that states no conversation may be recorded without prior notification or consent?

Re:Nice exclamation point

[poetmatt]

there is a difference between tapping the line upon warrant and just opening the line for them to monitor absolutely everything. The former being okay, the latter being what is going on and being investigated. You know, kinda a big deal if someone goes through your mailbox every day before you get to it right? As opposed to just the handlers to make sure you get things.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[PopeRatzo]

So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information they own to the feds without a warrant, then no law has been broken.

If "no law has been broken" then why are they lobbying so hard to get amnesty from prosecution??

And why are the neocons, the administration and some cowardly Democrats (Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller, specifically) fighting like their lives depended on it to make sure that language granting blanket retroactive amnesty (aka "ex post facto") gets included in this execrable "FISA" law?

Up until today, telecommunications companies would at least think twice before turning over phone records and allowing wide-ranging and unspecific wiretaps without warrants. After today, unless the very brave Senator Dodd from Connecticut is successful, any two-bit shitheel political operative will be able to get the private phone records of any American citizen without even asking a judge "mother may I".

It's really very simple. Our Constitution says that before the government (or an agency thereof, or some "contractor") can search your home, person, or effects, it has to convince a judge that there is a compelling legal reason to do so. It doesn't get much more reasonable (or simple) than that. There has long been a give-and-take between the government and the courts over this basic Constitutional requirement, where the government (Nixon) would go too far, then the Courts and the Congress would reel him in. The ultimate effect was a fairly robust protection of our rights. But in the last 7 years, there has been an effort to effect a permanent shredding of all limitations to what the government, particularly the executive branch (which means law enforcement, by the way), can do. The lasting effect of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of the rights of citizens.

Say, ArcherB, would you mind very much if someone who dislikes you were able to get recordings of every private phone call you've ever made?

If there's any group of people who understand this danger, it should be the readers of Slashdot. We also happen to be one of the groups that is best capable of putting up a fight to protect the Constitution.

Maybe if we put it this way: "The Bush Administration is trying to put a permanent root-kit on your system, and they will soon have superuser access." some of you might show a pulse on this issue. Or maybe: "The Bush Administration is running a cheat on the MMORPG that is your life. And it's a cheat that you will never be able to use." Now, does that spoil your fun, bubbie?

Re:Nice exclamation point

[e-scetic]

Now tell me why I should care.

The issue at hand is whether companies should be granted immunity for performing illegal and criminal actions if they are asked to do so by the government.

Another issue is the government should not be allowed to amend laws to make something legal, after the fact, just because the government did something illegal.

During the Nuremberg and other war crimes trials many people claimed they weren't responsible for the atrocities they committed on the grounds that they were just following orders. This is the exact same thing. There are always industries propping up criminal regimes and this is no different. In this case the telcos KNOW they're doing something illegal and unconstitutional, spying on every citizen, and so they're trying for a "get out of jail free" card.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[hey!]

Well, what about:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of course, you're right that the Fourth Amendment doesn't directly apply to private parties. But I think it operates to constrain them indirectly.

When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no common law right of privacy. That didn't come until Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote "The Right to Privacy", often called the most important law review article of all time. In it, they propose that a right to privacy is a natural theoretical outgrowth of other common law rights. But it is also a natural historical outgrowth of the Bill of Rights. Warren's motivation for writing the article was his annoyance at the popular press' intrusion into his private affairs (he was what used to be called "a swell" and apparently an object of fascination to less well-to-do readers). That vibrant and aggressive press was an outgrowth of the First Amendment.

It also turns out that the Bill of Rights has produced a nation of people who believe they have personal liberty. They may by-in-large be technically incorrect about the precise legal basis of that liberty, but that consensus itself is very powerful. It means that an ordinary, reasonable person looks at certain kinds of poking around in private affairs as outrageous. It produces a reasonable expectation of privacy which is relatively high, a fact which has profound implications in both Constitutional and common law.

Of course, the reason the Telcoms need immunity is they broke plain old Federal statutes, like the Wiretap Act and possibly the Pen Register Act. I would not be surprised if a creative lawyer might find a way to use the fact that they were helping agents of Uncle Sam break the law to multiply their pain. If they can find some way of calculating even a modest damage amount, they might go after them with Civil RICO, which allows private parties to extract additional penalties from racketeers. That would be sweet.

But when people cite the Bill of Rights in situations like this, they aren't making a technical, legal argument. They're saying we live in a society whose fundamental organizing principle is individual liberty, which is meaningless without some modicum of individual privacy. When vendors allow others to poke into your transactions, a reasonable person believes his expectation of privacy has been violated. And that matters a great deal.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[Qzukk]

Is there a law that says that telco's can't tap a line.

Various eavesdropping laws and wiretap laws?

I don't see what the cost is.

Abuse of the power. Loss of trust in the government.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[jo42]

The lasting effect of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of the rights of citizens. Heil Bush! about sums it up...

Re:Nice exclamation point

[Xichekolas]

If "no law has been broken" then why are they lobbying so hard to get amnesty from prosecution??

Because with America's awesome legal system, you don't have to actually be guilty of anything to be punished for it. The lawsuits will drag out for years, cost them hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and probably millions more in settlements to make them go away. Amnesty just nips that all in the bud.

I'm not saying it's right, but it seems pretty clear to me what their motivation is.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[me at werk]

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[terrymr]

This is crap and you know it.

There would never be a need for a warrant for a pen register or wiretap if that were true. The telco's may own their own records but they don't have the right to give up your constitutional rights on your behalf.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[morcego]

The lasting effect of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of the rights of citizens.

I would go even farther than that. It is impressive how much political profit this administration squeezed from the whole terrorist idea (11/9 included). Would it have been reelected otherwise ? What about all the other stuff that keep happening (and happens on every government, worldwide), but because of the "terrorist idea" they manage to keep low profile ?

I'm extremely suspicious of any government that profits (money, power, take your pick) from this kind of situation. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the rule everywhere.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[funkyloki]

That would depend on the state in which the recording takes place. IANAL, and this is just an example, but I believe in California, you must have the authority of all parties involved, while in Alaska, you only need the consent of one of the parties. Of course this is more for personal recordings of your own conversations. See this guide for more info:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Re:Nice exclamation point

[Mister Whirly]

"Is there a law that says that telco's can't tap a line."

Wow, either you really don't know much about the law, or you are trolling. But in case it is just ignorance of the law, the answer is YES.

Federal law enforcement officials may tap telephone lines only after showing "probable cause" of unlawful activity and obtaining a court order. This unlawful activity must involve certain specified felony violations. The court order must limit the surveillance to communications related to the unlawful activity and to a specific period of time, usually 30 days. (Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2516)

"I don't see what the cost is."

And the administration thanks you for it. Have you been paying attention to the news? While the law is stated as above, the current administration is claiming they are above the law and don't need to follow it. Hence the whole controversy about illegal phone tapping...

Re:Nice exclamation point

[cHiphead]

The companies in question became extensions of the government when they accepted government contracts and/or began providing the government with warrantless information.

Additionally, Telcos tend to be government sanctioned entities with 'right of way' access granted in exchange for services provided, why should they get any special treatment and be above the laws? They are doing the work that a government agency could/should be doing and are being allowed to make a profit on it. They are essentially an extension of a government service by their very existence.

So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information on citizens for any purpose without a warrant, the law has been broken.

Cheers.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[DavidTC]

I wish the title had used the correct word, 'amnesty'. You at least know the correct word.

Immunity is when you grant someone protection from being prosecuted from illegal actions in the past because of their testimony. The deal is 'You admit you did X, under oath, and we will no longer be able to prosecute you for having done X'. This is used to help go after some one else.

It's not just a 'rule' of immunity that you testify. It's not 'After being granted immunity you are immune to all criminal charges and have to answer any questions asked', it's actually 'After being granted immunity, you have to testify under oath and you are immune to things that you confess to under oath, and only what you confess to under oath.'.

This is why people who have immunity will spill their guts on the stand, because anything they can get out there that's even vaguely related to what they have immunity for they cannot be charged with, whereas if they don't get it out there they can later be charged with it if it's not explicitly what they were granted immunity for.

I.e., if you've been charged with accessory-after-the-fact to murder because you helped bury a body, and you committed a burglary to help further this, and you've been granted immunity to the accessory charge if you testify, you need to confess to the burglary also. Even if, at no point, is this burglary mentioned by anyone. If you do talk about it on the stand, they can't charge you with it later. If you don't, they can. Whatever you confess you just magically made yourself immune from prosecution. (There's some sort of 'connectedness' theory there, in that crimes you confess to must be vaguely related to the thing they were granted immunity for. So don't confess to random crimes you committed years ago, run them past your lawyer first. Although, even if it's not related, they cannot actually use your testimony on the stand (under immunity) against you regardless...they'd have to find evidence somewhere else.)

There is absolutely unequivocally no such thing as 'immunity' that does not involve testifying under oath and admitting the crimes. Immunity is the concept that what you testify to 'under immunity' you cannot be charged with, without testimony immunity is nothing. This bill does not require any testimony, ergo, it cannot, in any way, be considered 'immunity'.

It is amnesty. It is a legislative pardon for crimes that may or may not have been committed with no intention of looking into said crimes.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[DavidTC]

Yes. People who think that that the telecoms have the right to tap lines as long as the government isn't involved been to SHUT THE FUCK UP here, because this discussion is about the fact that is flatly illegal, and that is what they want amnesty from!

Dumbasses. Why the hell would we be talking about telecom amnesty if the government were the only entity violating the law? Why would telecoms want amnesty if their actions were legal? How would that make the slightest bit of sense?

Re:Nice exclamation point

[PopeRatzo]

Because with America's awesome legal system, you don't have to actually be guilty of anything to be punished for it.

Interesting. This is something you hear a lot from the guilty. The last people I heard who expressed that sentiment were Tom Delay, Scooter Libby and Larry Craig, all of whom were found or plead guilty.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[gambolt]

It's not the executive who are being granted immunity. It's the corporation, meaning the stockholders.

The CEOs were always going to skate. That's the whole point of corporate personhood, to shield corporate executives from liability. So long as there's no fraud involved they will still get multi-million dollar bonuses no matter what happens. If the democrats try to squeeze them I'm sure some of the neocon companies that moved headquarters to the UAE would be more than happy to use the money they embezzled from the CPA to pay them to play golf in Dubai for the rest of their lives.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[KDR_11k]

I was using executive as a shorthand for "member of the government's executive branch".

Re:Nice exclamation point

[gambolt]

It's the warentless wiretapping provisions of FISA that are the issue here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001810----000-.html

It defines the only circumstances under which warentless wiretap may take place and specifies that if it's done under any other circumstances all hell will break loose.

This is what Bush wants changed.

An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover--
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.

A $100 a day for every person with a telephone over a few years . . . Ouch.

That comes out to several trillion per teleco.

As I've been arguing elsewhere in this thread, there's a good faith argument to made that some form of retroactive liability shield is needed to keep this from totally tanking the economy. That would bankrupt the whole telecom industry at once (and deliver it to google.) I personally don't want gmail on my cell phone.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[sgt_doom]

Charges? For what? Is there a law that says that telco's can't tap a line.

Here's the point, ArcherB, you consistently come up with the same exact nonsensical posts - there appears to be absolutely no knowledge nor educated background in anything you say (along with your alter ego, Sumdumass).

One is always tempted to respond to your mindless gibberish - but no one, simply no one living in the Western Hemisphere, or raised in Asia could be that ignorant. Something in your posts is truly amiss.....

"We must gang rape them over there 'cause we ain't supposed to gang rape them over here." Dick Cheney/Halliburton/KBR goons

Re:Nice exclamation point

[sgt_doom]

God Bless you, Great Citizen, DavidTC, for once again stating the frigging obvious!@!!!!!! IS almost everyone posting to /. lately permanently brain dead? Or maybe these are those typical Pentagon trolls again? Perhaps they are simply grade school flunkouts.....(Geez, I wish I could stop saying that stuff, I'm an atheist)

Re:Nice exclamation point

[Xichekolas]

It doesn't matter if the defendant is guilty. The 'punishment' is in the legal fees.

For an example in another area dear to the hearts of slashdotters... I'm sure the majority of the people the RIAA runs into court are probably guilty of something to do with the DMCA. My point is that they are all effectively punished because they can't afford to fight it in court. They end up settling with the RIAA... usually for the balance of their savings accounts. Even if you are guilty, you should have the right to a fair trial. These people can either just settle and accept their fate without due process, or battle it out and possibly get screwed even worse.

I'm not saying our legal system is terrible or anything, I'm just saying for the little guy (not Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, or Larry Craig), you are pretty screwed fighting a civil suit if the other party has a lot more money than you. Likewise for a company like AT&T... even if they were to successfully defend every case and came out vindicated, they would have had to spend a lot of money doing so. The motivation to request amnesty is to avoid that 'punishment'.

Re:Nice exclamation point

[LandruBek]

Well, the telco wouldn't be liable for breaking the 4th amendment in any case (since stricly speaking it applies only to the Federal government). But they would be liable for breaking the Telecommunications Act of 1934.

Goodbye

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodbye Liberty and Freedom, we knew ye not long enough. Soon our President will be King, and the sheep will continue to do nothing...

Misread title

[KDR_11k]

I read that as "Telecom Immunity Shot Down". Too bad...

Whoops, meant DINO.

[FatSean]

Must be the Freedom Derangement Syndrome.

Re:Whoops, meant DINO.

[Presto Vivace]

It's hard to tell the difference.

Well, let's see

[smchris]

Coleman? Yeah, calling him is going to do a lot of good.
Klobuchar? Voted for FISA last summer. Blue dog Dem who votes against the constitution more often than not.

Democracy, 21st century style, in action.

Re:Well, let's see

[innerweb]

Maybe, but I have helped to change a few people's votes here. The best thing to do is get enough people to call in to let them know this is a decision that would force many people to consider them unelectable. In other words, they go into the anyone but them box. I am not saying it is easy, but is can be done.

Businesses may have the dollars, but the people have the votes, and grass roots can work - albeit with time.

InnerWeb

Re:Well, let's see

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, I am from Minneapolis and feel the same way. Ain't it crazy how many conservatives are running the show in our supposedly liberal city?

Re:Well, let's see

[smchris]

Oh, I sent Klobuchar a letter after her first FISA vote. Got back a bunch of "strong on terra" blah-de-blah. She's just playing the tired old hand that "nobody ever got ousted being tough on 'law enforcement'." No matter what it does to the structure of the country. Hard to argue with that proven strategy when they're all just unprincipled survey watchers.

Senate contact info

[Presto Vivace]

Senate contact information

Re:Senate contact info

[techpawn]

If the telecoms monitor everything you email and call about... What's to stop them from monitoring/blocking/listing you for contacting your senator in opposition to their immunity?

Not to scare anyone, just thinking... This is one time where pen and paper would have been the only way to go.

Re:Senate contact info

[j.sanchez1]

Thanks for the contact info. The EFF site link in the summary has a form letter on it. Fill out your information and the EFF will send it to the appropriate senators for you. Took me less than a minute, and it was sent to both my senators.

Re:Senate contact info

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If the vote was today, paper mail would arrive late. Paper mail is a little harder to ignore though.

Re:Senate contact info

[Kohath]

What's to stop them from monitoring/blocking/listing you for contacting your senator in opposition to their immunity?

Life is not a conspiracy movie.

It works differently when there are no writers trying to make everything interesting for an audience. It's a lot more real, with people going to work and doing normal things rather than everyone either trying to take over the world or stop you from taking over the world.

You should consider joining us here in reality sometime. It's less interesting, but you get to be an adult and make your own decisions instead of following the writers' thoughts from one fictional plot point to another.

Re:Senate contact info

[AndersOSU]

If anyone is interested, the bill is likely to pass, but Chris Doddmay be stage a filibuster.

Also the house passed a version of the bill without immunity, so even if this does pass it isn't quite done yet.

Re:Senate contact info

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the writers where on strike... Which is why my life is so boring right now

Re:Senate contact info

[CensorshipDonkey]

No, that's ridiculous. Who cares if the telecoms know I'm writing my senator? Cut me off? Secretly downgrade my service?

Re:Senate contact info

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a lot of talk for not saying much.

Life is not a conspiracy movie.

If it was, I'd be demanding my cut. Unfortunately, history (Hoover) has demonstrated that these things actually happen "here in reality". Since your post is entirely devoid of anything explaining why it won't happen again (despite, for instance, the recent Justice Department audit showing that the FBI was misusing security letters for various reasons) why don't you join us here in reality, or at least give us something more substantial than "This time it will be different!"

Re:Senate contact info

[sgt_doom]

Oh, come off it, dood. Let me repeat for the nth time: the first thing your corporate-owned senator does when she/he/it receives a letter/fax/phone call from a constituent is to compare your name/address to their donor database. If you have donated stratospherically high amounts to their campaigns, you may receive a response of some kind after a relatively short time. If you have never donated, or only donated small amounts, you will eventually receive a pre-canned response from them (if you are lucky). There are several exceptions to this rule (Sen. Feingold comes immediately to mind), but they are extremely few and extremely far-between.

Your vote doesn't count - deal with it!!! The corporate lobbyists control the votes - each one probably accounts for 1,000 to 100,000 votes. 'Nuff said.....

Re:Senate contact info

[sgt_doom]

I believe techpawn was establishing the point that given extraordinary and unethical powers, one can extrapolate further transgressions heaped upon previous transgressions. This was probably too subtle a point for you, Kohath.

With regard to: Life is not a conspiracy movie.

You might reflect upon reality for a change. Just the other day we who pay attention to reality witnessed the abrupt resignation of the Inspector General of the US State Department, Howard Krongard. Several days later we witness the news that a brutal gang rape of a Halliburton employee took place several years ago in Iraq by KBR thugs (along with her abduction/imprisonment afterwards) - an event which was obstructed/covered up by that resigning Inspector General Krongard ("coincidentally" the brother of Buzz Krongard, number three dood at the CIA - and career member of the investment firm Alex Brown - when those mysterious puts/shorts of the 9/11/01-involved airlines and WTC-involved companies took place - and whose investment firm did that small-change millions end up in? Whoa...Alex Brown!).

First several times illegal wire-tapping made the national news, shortly thereafter it was knocked out of the news by those Spanish-language radio station-organized national (illegal? undocumented?) immigration marches.

Who owned those Spanish-language radio stations? Blackstone Group. Who is a major donor to Bush campaign...brokered the quickest, largest deal in NYC's biz history - that would be the WTC deal - and was lease-holder on WTC Building 7? Whoa....Blackstone Group.

You might look up the stats on the number of criminal conspiracies (and criminal coporate conspiracies) individuals are found guilty of every week here in North America.....

Heard on the radio this morning

[techpawn]

A glimmer of hope. Some senators are saying that while the telecoms should get some protection for how they helped after 11-sept that it shouldn't be complete immunity and it shouldn't be completely retroactive.

Meaning that there are some people still holding out that total blank slate is wrong but some protections be grated for some limited period in the past. If that's the compromise that has to be made to get it through the senate to reach the inevitable veto, it's still better than saying that they're going to bend over completely.

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[iminplaya]

That's not hope. That's a distraction. The simple fact is that if you work as an agent of the government, no matter what capacity, then the constitution must apply. But we don't even require that the government itself operate under its constitutional restrictions, so what does it matter? There should be NO immunity! Ever! As the authoritarian apologists tell tell us, "If you don't like the law as it stands, then change it."

All we are is farts in the wind

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[techpawn]

But the government also works on compromise. I don't agree with compromising the constitution but if it's the only way to move the bill ahead with the other parts you need/want is to include this partial protection carrot then it has to be done. Then we have to have faith in the judicial system and that it will reach the courts and that section be thrown out over being unconstitutional.

Politics isn't the cut and dry thing we make it out to be. Sometimes we need to agree to deals we know to be dirty to accomplish our goals, means to an ends, and hope the system works correctly all the way through. If we have to carrot this protection amendment to get a FISA bill that "fixes" domestic wiretapping to not be a mess of illegal fishing, then so be it.

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not hope. That's politics.

Some senators get political cover for "defending the constitution"

The telecoms get a new set of rules, so they can get the courts busy deciding what the new rules mean for the rest of our lifetimes.

Anything new that the telecoms can throw under the wheels of the courts amounts to a blank check for the telecoms.

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[iminplaya]

Making dirty deals to accomplish your goals reduces the "quality" of the goal. "Yes, we'll punish the offenders, but you must eat 10,000 babies first". Sorry, that's exactly why the democrats are no damn good after the promises they made. They're making unnecessary compromises to to get a bill passed, and only for appearances. I'd rather have NO bill than a bad one. No immunity for the telcos, no more money for the war, close down Gitmo, stop violating our rights! Stall it until they get it right. We've compromised enough. No more. If we vote for a change, we damn well better get some. If the bill includes any immunity, then it's a bad bill and should not pass. That we must demand from these people. If we don't, then quit pussyfooting around and just make Bush emperor for life. Stop stringing people along giving false hopes for any real change. 45 years is more than long enough.

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[Bearpaw]

But the government also works on compromise.

This government -- particularly the Administration and their enablers -- works on their personal version of compromise. Which essentially means that they just keep demanding what they want in different ways, and if they don't get what they want, they find a way to simply take it. Then, when necessary, they hide their thefts behind "state secrets", "executive privilege", and the all-inclusive "national security".

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[techpawn]

Yes, we'll punish the offenders, but you must eat 10,000 babies first"

I don't think anyone would agree to anything that drastic, but:
Only interceptions between 11-Sept-2001 and 13-Sept-2001 for known terror suspects as of 1-Jan-2008 shall be granted limited legal protections

That isn't the total immunity that the Administration is pushing for but may be enough to get the needed votes to get it through. Yes, it leaves a large window to make an 11th hour list of terror suspects, but this is just blue sky wording.

then quit pussyfooting around and just make Bush emperor for life
And who the hell is saying make Bush Emperor for life? The politicians are just working the the ebb and flow needed to get things done. It's not pretty, but, that's why not everyone is willing to work in public office. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone else, but if there is going to be any progress there can't be two parties playing hard line politics.

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[Danse]

Not everyone is going to agree with everyone else, but if there is going to be any progress there can't be two parties playing hard line politics. Maybe not, but it would be nice if at least one party would uphold the Constitution. Isn't that kind of the bare minimum that elected representatives are supposed to do?

Re:Heard on the radio this morning

[iminplaya]

First off, the whole issue of terrorism in this context is pure distraction from the guy picking your pocket. If we were serious about going after "terrorists", then there wouldn't be the existing unconditional subsidies to radical Zionists, and South American, Asian, African dictators that just happen to be our "friends" giving their resources at bargain basement prices (of course if they don't, we will just go in and take them). It's ruse.Ignore it, and let's cut to the chase.

The politicians are just working the the ebb and flow needed to get things done.

No they aren't. They are pandering to big money for big "contributions". That is what will determine the fate of the bill. The flow has been entirely in one direction. And the politicians have one interest in mind, their own. People running for public office are doing it for personal gain, not any kind of community service. And we fall for every trick in the book in the hopes of skimming a little ourselves. The result being lying, thieving bastards in high office. Winning at all costs is no way to run a circus. Not to be offensive, but that statement of yours just sounds so much like appeasement, as in being an apologist for them, and makes me just a bit nauseous. The theme there is a little too common. Please, stop. They don't deserve the time of day. Not any more. All progress came to a screeching halt in 1968, and somebody forgot to put a rock behind the wheels to keep the truck from rolling backwards down the hill, and here come the cliff. And if you don't apply the brakes or get out of the vehicle, you'll be carried right over the edge along with it.

...but if there is going to be any progress there can't be two parties playing hard line politics.

Yes, well, the key word there is "playing". Because that's all they are doing.and we don't have two parties. We have a cheap soap opera to keep our minds off of being raped by these people. Let's get a real opposition party in there and see what happens. Ain't gonna happen. Too many people are too willing to give them "one more chance". How many more times? Couldn't tell you. But the time is now to end this. The primaries haven't begun yet. The incumbent party must be removed like the cancer that it is. I guess I just don't know how to tell you that the public's or the country's or the world's interest is just not on the agenda. Neither theirs, nor ours apparently. We are dealing entirely with self interest. That is what providing the world we live in today.

Without cash good luck...

[slashname3]

If anyone thinks this bill is going to be modified to eliminate immunity for the telecom companies I have some beach side land in Arizona that you might be interested in.

The telecom industry pays well for the politicians that they hire. No amount of complaining by us or anyone else like us will modify the votes of those politicians. Unless you can provide more money than the telecom industry there is little chance of influencing this bill and getting it changed.

Re:Without cash good luck...

[jbeach]

So, let's just give and do whatever corporations want, then? Freedom, who cares? The effort is just too inconvenient?

To quote Jello Biafra, "Give me convenience or give me death?"

I totally disagree with this outlook; I view it as self-defeating fatalism. US courts still have the power to affect corporations, and they have this power (and we keep our freedoms) to the extent that we stand up for our rights.

Re:Without cash good luck...

[slashname3]

So have fun tilting at windmills. You will achieve the same result. A group managing to get things changed is the exception anymore. You can expend all your energy yelling at your congress critters and you will not change the way they will vote. They are owned by special interests, if the special interest is opposite of what you want done then you are out of luck.

If you still don't believe that, when was the last time a candidate won office where they collected less money than the second place candidate? Then ask where does the money come from? There is some donated by individual voters but the vast bulk of the money comes from special interests/corporations that buy congress critters by the dozen. And a congress critter knows that you don't take money then don't deliver. That is a sure way for the special interests to back your opponent the next time around.

Re:Without cash good luck...

[jbeach]

*Trying* to do something is always more likely to succeed than doing nothing, wouldn't you agree? Doing nothing has a zero chance of changing anything. Even if the odds are long, trying to do something does succeed - because eventually things do work right. For example, here it looks like Dodd was able to win the battle. Now I'm aware that this is a battle in a long war - but it's a battle that was won. People can stand up and do the right thing against long odds and **win**. In fact it's the only way positive change happens this world. I'm for making things better for everyone; and there's selfishness in that, as that means things are better for me. I'm sure you want a better world for yourself and others too. Take heart - sometimes good guys actually do win. And it's worth fighting just for those times, besides being able to feel like, whatever happend, you've done all you can to make a better world.

Writing won't work... Try this

[CambodiaSam]

I was at a conference a few years ago where a former US Senator told us exactly how to get the attention of your congressman. Sending an email is a black hole and won't get noticed. A hand written letter is much better, but it has to go through all of that Anthrax screening and will probably get delayed 6-8 weeks. The solution? Faxing.

Here's what you you:

1. Hand write the letter of your dreams and include these aspects:
    a. Make sure it's not overly emotional
    b. Mention how you will be "posting the response in our place of business" near the end
    c. Mention how many voters currently work in your office and that you are all anxiously awaiting the response
    d. Include a response fax number, email, and more
2. Fax the letter to the congressman's office (you can usually find their number online)
3. Watch for your reply!

Apparently this method will get your letter to the top of the pile since it's personalized, instantly delivered via an underutilized technology, and it mentions votes.

Enjoy!

Re:Writing won't work... Try this

[tyroneking]

Haven't you guys in the US got something like the UK's http://www.writetothem.com/?
I've used it to write to my MP at least once - and I even got a reply!

Re:Writing won't work... Try this

[CambodiaSam]

Sure, you can even go to congress.org and find them. The problem is really with priorities. As the senator stated in the speech I saw (it was a private function for a company annual meeting, so he didn't have to worry about cameras or reporters), they get literally thousands of emails a day.

It's a shear numbers game. Most aren't even from people in their district. Whenever a hot button topic is up for a vote, the interested parties will rally their faithful and bombard them with form letter emails or calls to action. For example, a telephone company will probably circulate an email telling the thousands of employees to email their congressman to vote for/against whatever is in their interest, and even have the whole thing written up with just a "Submit" button and email textbox left for the sheep to fill in.

The Senator said that this is essentially useless, as they have all caught on, and that it's probably not representative of actual people's opinions, just special interests using people as tools. Phone calls are a little more effective, but it's indirect. You end up talking to an intern who then relays "100 for, 345 against today's bill Sir".

The handwritten letter is the best. It shows time was taken. Faxing it usually gets noticed since nobody faxes things to them. It's all email or postal service. When you throw in the "I'm going to post the response in my office", that's usually what takes the cake.

For this one Senator, he said it worked every time.

Re:Writing won't work... Try this

[tyroneking]

Well I'm going to take your advice this week when I write to complain about proposals to reduce holiday visas to the UK to 3 months.
Thanks for convincing me.

Chris Dodd leads the way

[Liberaltarian]

Thankfully, Chris Dodd (D-Jowls) will be leading a filibuster in the Senate. Let's hope other Senators join and support him (call your congresscritters!).

Here's a good outline of what will be going down.

Re:Chris Dodd leads the way

[Anonymous Coward]

That's excellent. I feel like running around town screaming "Cripple Fight!" to every passerby I see. Fillibuster's are awesome, but what's the deal with only allowing 20 minutes plus questions? Didn't Strom "The living dead" Thurmond hold a 26 hour fillibuster once?

Re:Chris Dodd leads the way

[littlerubberfeet]

Dear old, dead Strom holds the record for the longest filibuster.

What piece of legislation was he trying to protect the USA from?

Why, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of course!

What an asshole.

----------

At least Dodd is threatening to filibuster a bad piece of legislation. You (the American Public) don't sign contracts without reading them. The Senate shouldn't be granting immunity without knowing what they are immunizing the telecoms from. Perhaps the telecos were lied to and given legal assurances from DOJ, and thus deserve a break, however unlikely. Let us hear all the facts before we grant immunity. Don't sign a contract without reading it.

The bill doesn't expire until Feb. 08, so there is time.

Re:Chris Dodd leads the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea, but the Senate appears to have voted on a "cloture motion", which allows only 30 hours of debate and eliminates the filibuster.

Here's the vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00435

Here's the "cloture" definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[dada21]

This is just a gimmick used by those in government to push the issue away from the real issue: government's unnatural immunity against committing crimes against the People.

Seriously, I could care less about the telecoms. That's not my worry. When government tells you to jump, you jump. Gitmo is an ugly hotel for those who refuse. If the State forced me to release my logs, what can I do to fight it? Call the EFF or the IJ? That'll help, maybe 3 years down the road.

No, the real issue is the one most geeks and freedom-lovers ignore: that our elected candidates continue to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The President, the Senators, and almost all of the Congressional Representatives save 2 have violated this oath. The penalty should be the equivalent to the most extreme penalty available for the greatest crime that specific level of government can enforce.

Stop turning the issue to the telecoms, who are merely shills for the State. The true crime has been committed by every branch of government, and it is a crime that must be investigated. Unfortunately, the investigators are themselves, so the crime will be ignored, with the anger pointed at businesses who will likely get what they deserve.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Rocketship Underpant]

There's only one presidential candidate who will put an end to this crap. No need to mention his name; he's voted against it for 30 years as a Congressmen and was just given $6 million in a single day by 50,000 Americans who are tired of all this crap.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[kmac06]

How is this flamebait? I totally disagree with the post, but it's certainly not flamebait. If you don't like the post, either respond to it or leave it alone.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[squiggleslash]

Yeah, but what hope has Dennis Kucinich have of ever getting elected?

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[dada21]

It's just me, I always get flamebait mods on my posts. There are a lot of people here with cushy government tech jobs, and they don't like the idea of having to compete in the market that would exist should my "utopia" come to fruition.

Luckily, there are many more freedom-inspired moderators today than 4 years ago. I think I had the worst Karma for a good year with basically the same opinion.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[wonkavader]

"Seriously, I could care less about the telecoms. That's not my worry. When government tells you to jump, you jump. Gitmo is an ugly hotel for those who refuse. If the State forced me to release my logs, what can I do to fight it? Call the EFF or the IJ? That'll help, maybe 3 years down the road."

Forced compliance which the Telcos are anxious to productize? And why didn't Qwest wind up in Gitmo when they said "no"?

No, these are sleazy companies who deserve everything we throw at them. Further, the President won't release info on what he did, but we can pull it out of the telecoms. We can then impeach him based on that info. And ultimately, telling companies that they're above the law means that we only get more AT&Ts and fewer Qwests. We need to reward Qwest's behavior, so that we see corporations say "no" more often.

Hey, let's give Qwest Michigan! Merry Christmas, Qwest! You were a good little boy, so you get a present. AT&T, you get a lump of coal.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[krunk7]

And whom will testify against them if the telecoms have immunity?

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[MobyDisk]

The only way to fight crimes committed by the government is to use the court system. Yet you are saying we should ignore the fact that they are about to pass a law saying that they are not subject to the ruling of the courts. That would eliminate our only way to hold them liable. The telecoms are just the current battle front: And one that could land a lot of higher-up politicians in jail. If we lose this one, we probably lose the war - that includes Gitmo. This is no gimmick: This is the real thing.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[spun]

That's right, dada, people are threatened by your genius. Except for you, a selfless defender of the Rugged Individual, we are all spineless pawns of The Man. Nobody could possibly have real issues with your proposals, it must be self interest. We know that we are miserable failures who can't compete in the real world, like you.

Not that you deserved a down mod for your post. Some people can be assholes. But your arrogance, and willingness to ascribe the basest of motives and lack of ability to all who oppose you reveals you to be the very kind of authoritarian you purport to hate. You don't want freedom for individuals, you want everyone to do what you say without question.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd vote for his wife.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[JordanH]

I think the part where he said:

When government tells you to jump, you jump. Gitmo is an ugly hotel for those who refuse.

could be qualified as flamebait. I've not heard that there is anyone in Gitmo for refusing to "jump". Of course, many are there for reasons that are unclear or classified, so it's hard to disprove. Nevertheless, a comment like that is meant to attract a flame war, not real discussion.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Spy der Mann]

Yeah, but what hope has Dennis Kucinich have of ever getting elected?

GP poster meant Ron Paul. You haven't been reading social networking news recently, have you?

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not accusing Rocketship Underpant of being a Paultard now, are you?

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[gambolt]

Yeah, but he's also opposed to publicly funded sidewalks.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Danse]

But your arrogance, and willingness to ascribe the basest of motives and lack of ability to all who oppose you reveals you to be the very kind of authoritarian you purport to hate. You don't want freedom for individuals, you want everyone to do what you say without question. May the mods shower you with +1 Insightfuls.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[huckamania]

No, it's those people with the cushy government jobs.

They really hate it when people bring up Gitmo as an example of the erosion of the rights of the average American. The less then 400 non-American detainees at Gitmo get treated better then the average American in a state run jail. Our soldiers would be more then happy with the same accomodations when captured as opposed to being deheaded on the intertubes.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[dada21]

They really hate it when people bring up Gitmo as an example of the erosion of the rights of the average American. The less then 400 non-American detainees at Gitmo get treated better then the average American in a state run jail. Our soldiers would be more then happy with the same accomodations when captured as opposed to being deheaded on the intertubes.

Err, when I bring up Gitmo, I call it out for the U.S. government's erosion of rights of every one, not just Americans. The Constitution is clear that it restricts the US government from trampling on the rights of any individual, not just citizens. People in Gitmo, people in Iraq, people in Antarctica are born with certain inalienable rights. The U.S. government has a restriction on what they can do to them, regardless of where they happen to be.

And if Gitmo is all wonderful and nice and country-club like, why can't reporters take some photos and interview some of the enslaved captives there? Why can't a Writ of Habeus Corpus be issued, and a lawyer discuss issues privately?

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[huckamania]

Because the US government is fighting an enemy that flies no flag, wears no uniform, obeys no laws and respects no treaties. This same enemy also purposefully targets civilians and has done so in Europe, America, Africa and Asia.

Any other questions?

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[huckamania]

"enslaved captives"

Cry me a river...

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[spun]

Guess what? The mafia flies no flag, wears no uniform, obeys no laws and respects no treaties, and purposefully targets civilians in Europe, America, Africa and Asia. They've killed more Americans than "terrorists" ever have. Do we have to throw out the constitution to fight them? Do we need to call in the military? No, groups like that can be best fought by law enforcement and the justice system.

I don't even understand how people can, with a straight face, offer up the excuse that you just did. It makes no sense.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[G27 Radio]

Yeah, but he's also opposed to publicly funded sidewalks.

You mean he's against federally funded public sidewalks. A community's sidewalks should be paid by someone locally, not by people that live on a farm halfway across the country. Please get your facts straight.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[gambolt]

He'd be opposed to those to.

He'd just be more opposed to the federal governent doing anything to ban them. In libertarian ideology there is no public property, no "commons."

There weren't a lot of changes in the Libertarian platform between the founding of the party in 1972 and a couple years ago when they finaly decided that electability was more important than insanity and dropped stuff like the bit about child labor laws being the cause of poverty in America.

Here's that 1972 foundational platform. It's a lot like what Paul ran on in 1988. I can't find his 1988 platform on the web anywhere. It's been scoured.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29615

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[G27 Radio]

First you can't back up your assertion because you claim it's been "scoured" from the Internet. Sorry, but that's even more ridiculous than your original assertion. Then you go on to imply that the libertarian ideology would be against communities being able to choose to have sidewalks which they pay for themselves. If you actually believe such a thing, then I doubt I or anyone else is going to be able to convince you otherwise.

The reason I personally support Ron Paul, and that I've voted Libertarian in the past three presidential elections, is that I believe government needs to be brought closer to the local level, so that people have greater control over the laws to which they are subject. I, nor anyone else I've talked to, is so inflexible as to believe that there is no role for the federal government or public property whatsoever.

The key is being able to understand that not every issue is black and white. For example you can believe in smaller government without being an anarchist.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[gambolt]

Sure I can, and did. That's what the foundational platform I posted was for. It's more or less common knowledge in Libertarian circles that up until the 2006 convention the libertarian party platform had 61 planks that while reworded for clarification over the years remained intact. So, if the platform was mostly consistent from 1972 to 2006 and Paul ran for president in 1988, the platform from any of those election years will be a lot like the one under which he ran.

There are a lot of conflicts between libertarians and Libertarians. I voted for Harry Brown when I was 18 so I'm sympathetic. The US Libertarian party is full of minarchists and anacro-capitalists who have hijacked the name. Most only pay lip service to federalism and use it as an excuse for social darwinism. It used to be that libertarian was a code word for anarchist because that word was scary. Now some small el libertarians are starting to self-identify as anarchists so as to not be confused with the Libertarians.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[An Onerous Coward]

There are a lot of people here with cushy government tech jobs, and they don't like the idea of having to compete in the market that would exist should my "utopia" come to fruition.

I don't think it's just "people here with cushy government tech jobs." Anyone who isn't the owner of a factory that makes firearms, barbed wire, or dried jerky stands to lose out in the aftermath of your revolution. Mad Max was a fun movie, and maybe a good theme for an adventure camp for bored rich folk. Nothing more.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[huckamania]

I don't understand how someone can say the police and the lawyers are going to save us. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe we should have just passed a resolution outlawing Al Qaeda and never sent the troops into Afghanistan (which is where a majority of the Gitmo prisoners were captured).

I think maybe you people are confusing Gitmo with Abu Gharaib.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[evilviper]

Hey, let's give Qwest Michigan! Merry Christmas, Qwest! You were a good little boy, so you get a present. AT&T, you get a lump of coal.

Considering the current economy of Michigan and the cost of Energy, a reasonably large lump of coal might be worth more than serving the state.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[spun]

How is Al Qaeda different from the mafia? Al Qaeda have killed less people, they have fewer members, and less diverse operations. Terrorism is a law enforcement concern, the military can do nothing except create more enemies. Did we really hurt Al Qaeda by going into Afghanistan? Did we catch Osama? And why did we leave before the job was done? Because the military is a scam, it does not exist to protect us, it exists to funnel our tax dollars into military socialism.

Please, present us with a scenario where we would need our military. "Invading other countries to further the ends of the power elite" is not a valid answer. Bonus points for explaining why police, the national guard, militias and an emergency draft couldn't handle things.

We DO NOT need a standing army. The ONLY reason we have it is to further the ends and enrich the coffers of the power elite.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[huckamania]

"Did we really hurt Al Qaeda by going into Afghanistan? Did we catch Osama? And why did we leave before the job was done?"

Yes, no and when exactly did we leave? I must have missed that news flash about the US leaving Afghanistan.

"Please, present us with a scenario where we would need our military."

You should study what led up to WWI. You'll be fascinated, because even today people argue over the cause. Today, there are lots of flashpoints around the globe that could lead to war on a world scale. These places are in the news a lot. Consult Agnes Nutter or Nostradamus if you want a prediction.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[spun]

We didn't leave, exactly, but we did pull the majority of our forces out prematurely. I don't completely agree that we should have invaded, and I don't agree that we accomplished anything of value.

I've studied WWI, you're right, it is interesting. But the world has changed since then. It's too interconnected for any major player to risk a world war. The risk/benefit analysis for war is totally different now. And the minor players don't have the capacity to mount something like an invasion of the American mainland. Implying that the causes of WWI could replay in today's world is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof. I know a fair amount about WWI, so I'd like to hear your theories as to how those conditions could exist today.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[MrYotsuya]

People in cities generate excess revenue for the federal government. It's the people who are in rural areas that are revenue sinks. In other words, your argument should be the other way around.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[G27 Radio]

People in cities generate excess revenue for the federal government. It's the people who are in rural areas that are revenue sinks. In other words, your argument should be the other way around.

No, the argument works both ways. People in cities should not be taxed to pay for projects for rural communities half way across the country either.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Do we need to call in the military? No, groups like that can be best fought by law enforcement and the justice system.

That's why, after all these years, the mafia is still around. Good job, law enforcement!

Not that any military will fare any better against tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of fanatic Islamics.

BYW, Islamic "terrorists" (why the 'scare' quotes, anyway? no such thing as a 'terrorist'?) have killed far more people than the mafia ever hoped to. That's a facetious argument.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[huckamania]

I'll just name the flash points and you can fill in the blanks:

The Taiwan Straits (nuclear flash point, 1 civil war since WWI)
The Indo-Paki Border (nuclear flash point, several wars since WWI)
The Sino-Indo Border (nuclear flash point)
The Korean DMZ (nuclear flash point, 1 war since WWI)
The Iran-Iraq Border (1 war since WWI)
The Israeli Border (nuclear flash point, several wars since WWI)

I'm with you, around the campfire, singing kumbaya. I just wish more of the world was with us.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why care about the fate of the telecoms in this?

First, as many have mentioned, the precedent is important that complicity with illegal government acts will not be easily forgiven -- as is establishing that those who turn over data WITHOUT the proper legal mechanisms will not actively BENEFIT from their illegal acts.

Second, and more importantly, this is an indirect way of holding government responsible. For various reasons, we may not have standing, have the political ability, have the will, etc. directly to challenge the government on its spying. However, the participation of private enterprise -- in which they violated their obligations to subscribers, and most likely the law -- allows us an easy mechanism to challenge the acts themselves without the 'immunity' the federal government currently claims. A clear statement by the courts that telecoms bear legal liability for these acts establishes (to some degree or another) the fact that the actions requested by the government were themselves wrong; as this is currently denied, I think this would be a step in the right direction toward holding government DIRECTLY responsible.

Pardoning a specific, last-ditch, emergency act may occasionally have its place. Retroactively legalizing activity known at the time to be illegal (activity which was then calmly carried out after careful deliberation), actively subverts our ability to plan on and be confident in our basic liberties in the future.

Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms?

[Anonymous Coward]

World Police! Fuck yeah!

Why would we even bother getting involved in other countries' nuclear wars?

Two things might happen

[faloi]

First, we get more proof that the Republicans and Democrats aren't really all that different when it comes to pandering to lobbyists and being willing to grab power (don't forget a lot of the worst things passed in the last 7 years were passed almost unanimously). Second, the telecoms might not get immunity. Both work out pretty well for the people.

the only common sense reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be the only one who is thinking critically on slashdot but here goes. If the government is compelling the nation's telecom industries to provide customer information to the government, then it seems only reasonable to protect them from financial ruin as a result of said action. Telecoms are not volunteering customer information. They are being "asked". And when I say "asked", I mean they are being asked the same way a mafia boss would "ask" for your help with 2 goons with guns standing in the background leering at you. That is not really a request. It is a demand (albeit a polite demand) from someone who has the power and inclination to hurt you if you refuse. This legislation does not remove your ability to challenge the validity of the authority on which the info was obtained. It only keeps you from suing the telecom company. This forces litigation to be pursued against the requester (the government) of said info rather than the provider of the information. This seems logical to me since government has infinitely invisible ways to exert leverage on private businesses. It is unreasonable to expect a business to stand up to the fury of an already intrusive entity that has the power to greatly punish an industry or business with a simple stroke of the pen. I would much rather see this law go through and then have the legitimacy of the request challenged in court.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[djmurdoch]

Some of the more outrageous requests were refused. The telecoms can say no, but they chose not to.

If they are granted immunity for their illegal acts this time, why wouldn't they expect the same treatment next time?

Re:the only common sense reaction

[squiggleslash]

Qwest refused. Supposedly they were subsequently punished for it. Whether they were or not is the subject of a court case. However:

If they were punished, not punishing the complaint telcos for doing whatever the government says sends a message to the compliant telcos that subservience and submission to illegal government orders is in their best interests.

If they weren't punished, supposedly there is no reason why the compliant telcos should have obeyed the illegal government orders. In which case, where is the moral argument for not punishing a group of corporations who illegally helped the government subvert the constitution of the United States?

Re:the only common sense reaction

[KDR_11k]

When the Nazis came "asking" people for support those people weren't let off by the Allies afterwards. That established the rule: You must not follow illegal orders or you will be punished.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[Danse]

That is not really a request. It is a demand (albeit a polite demand) from someone who has the power and inclination to hurt you if you refuse. Whether you're a soldier or a civilian, illegal orders are still illegal. You are not supposed to obey them, and you can and should be held accountable if you do.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[drxenos]

What has always bothered my about that is we need lawyers just to make sense of our laws. How do I, as a soldier, know if some action is illegal? What if I refuse orders on the grounds I believe them to be illegal and they are not? Could I not then be court martialed? I think it is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[C0rinthian]

How do you as a citizen know if some action is illegal. Most people manage to act lawfully without constant advice from lawyers. I'm sure soldiers are capable of the same thing.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[drxenos]

I am not asked to make the complex, life-or-death decisions that soldiers are.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[Danse]

What has always bothered my about that is we need lawyers just to make sense of our laws. How do I, as a soldier, know if some action is illegal? I don't know enough about the training that soldiers receive to determine whether they should know a legal order from an illegal one. In this case though, we're not even talking about something as complex as a soldier in the field having to make a life-or-death decision about whether to obey an order or not. We're talking about telecom companies with big legal departments that can advise them of whether something is legal or not. If it was a legal request, it should have come with a warrant, or at least with a citation of the relevant laws that allow them to tap before obtaining a warrant, and the warrant should have been forthcoming within a couple of days.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[C0rinthian]

You are also not trained as soldiers are. Your point?

Re:the only common sense reaction

[drxenos]

"Your point?" What a ridiculous statement. I made my point. You making a counter-point--better or worse--doesn't reduce my argument to a non-statement.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[evilRhino]

Most drivers I see speed regularly. Your assumption is clearly false.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[C0rinthian]

The fact that you needed to pull out something so trivial simply reinforces my point. Thank you.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, all the time? The town I live in has a law that basically states that, if you have a garage, you must keep your car in it. You cannot park your car in your driveway, unless you have another car in your garage. I never know of this law until my friend ran afoul if it. A nosy neighbor with nothing better to do was reporting people to the police who were not following this law. Although my friend was attempting to act lawful, he was in fact, in violation of it. How does one "act lawful" when there are thousands and thousands of silly laws out there?

Re:the only common sense reaction

[toddestan]

How do you as a citizen know if some action is illegal. Most people manage to act lawfully without constant advice from lawyers. I'm sure soldiers are capable of the same thing.

Pretty much everyone is violating the law at some point or another as they go through their daily lives. A near certainty if they drive somewhere on public roads. Not to say what they are doing is wrong or harmful, morally or otherwise. But given the sheer number of laws regulating almost everything, it's pretty much impossible to follow them all.

Re:the only common sense reaction

[megaditto]

Nine-eleven!

Re:the only common sense reaction

[Tuoqui]

If the government 'asks' you to kill someone then you're still guilty of murder.

no immunity?

[loafula]

I think that not granting immunity would be unfair to those telco employees who would be convicted. I do think that any immunity granted should be only to the telco employees, and should only be for past incidents. Big brother should be slapped down, but those he coerced should be let off the hook this time and this time only.

Re:no immunity?

[russ1337]

I think that not granting immunity would be unfair to those telco employees who would be convicted. I do think that any immunity granted should be only to the telco employees, and should only be for past incidents. Big brother should be slapped down, but those he coerced should be let off the hook this time and this time only.

Yes, but it was THOSE telco employees who had the authority to act for the Company in these matters and handed over the information WITHOUT A WARRANT. The people approached for the information would have known what the rules were, and decided to (or were coerced into) providing the information without a warrant. If they were unsure on the legalities (while being coerced), then then company Legal should have been bought in.

Only by these individuals being held accountable in some way, will it send a message to business that individuals acting on behalf of the organization have to act within the law. If they were 'coerced' using illegal threats, then the individuals within the Govt agency responsible should ALSO be held accountable. And this may weigh into the severity of the punishment the company reps receive.

Until INDIVIDUALS are held accountable, then Companies and large corporations will continue to break the law, presumably hoping the fine isn't too severe when/if they eventually get caught.

Re:no immunity?

[tommyatomic]

Corporations are immune from crimal proscecution it is only civil charges that can be filed against them which bears financial penalties. IANAL But I am fairly certain unless you murder someone or steal something on the behest of your corperation your pretty much free and clear; its the corperation that is responsible for your actions that they dictate. The only people who are harmed by making corporations copable for their own actions are the shareholders which hopefully will encourage shareholders to only promote people with better ethics or better common sense in regards to covering for their lack of ethics with pseudo ethical behavior. To the telco employee's concerned about criminal issues repeat these words "They forced me to do it. I didnt want to spice that fiber but the well-being of my career and my family was at stake. The CEO MADE ME DO IT." Unless a tech/installer/engineer starts using stated unconstitionally installed wiretaps illegally on their own they are in no danger of proscecution.

Re:no immunity?

[gambolt]

What's going to be really unfair is all the teleco employees who are out of a job because of executives who set their companies up for trillians of dollars in liability in exchange for political favors.

The sections of FISA law dealing with violations and penalties is some of the most clearly written sections of federal code that I've ever read. Without congressional intervention of some kind, either immunity or huge bailout, this could well bankrupt the whole industry. Google and Qwest would snap up a lot of the rubble but it would still be pretty ugly for the whole tech industry for a while.

Re:no immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone considered the possibility of suing your representatives for breach of contract, false advertising, etc.. ? Breach of contract could be held due to the violation of oath of office that is required of each and every senator, house member, president, judge, and any other elected official. I think if this were to happen a few times (this being a civil matter, say... $150,000+ per suit) congress might straighten up when they realize that taking the bribe is more expensive that doing what they're there to do.

"your senator"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it.

Crooks and Liars

[christurkel]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/ is running a thread where you can post a letter to be read by Senator Dodd during his filibuster.

Goverment interfernece.

[KenRH]

I am not from the US of A but to me it seems a paradoks that the republicans who in prinsiple is the least favorable to the goverment interfering in much of anything is the one most favorable to them rolling over the citizens privacy.

Re:Goverment interfernece.

[wilder_card]

Republicans are only anti-Government power when they're not running the government. It's OK for their guys to break the law as long as those horrible liberals aren't in power. They talk a lot about morality but that doesn't mean they have any.

do they

[kurtis25]

Have they found the hidden immunity idol?

Took me less time then a slashdot post.

[krunk7]

Don't be a pud fucker, call your senator.

Let your Senators know how you feel

[Larry_Dillon]

The EFF has a web form for submitting comments to your senators.

Don't let AT&T off the hook:

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=337

too late

[spikedvodka]

It's too late to do anything at this point. Pretty much once it hits the floor, everybody known which way they're going to vote... If they even get your letters before the vote.

Not to say it isn't worth trying, but don't get your hopes up

Anthrax

[Presto Vivace]

After anthrax was sent to Senators Leahy and Daschle the mail procedures were change such that paper mail wont reach the Senate office until months too late. In a fight such as this volume everything. Contacting a Senator through his senate web site is the fastest, most convenient way, or telephone.

You forgot 1e

[Solandri]

1e. Mention how much you and your co-workers could donate as campaign contributions next year. Half ;)

Re:Moderators: Please mod all 5 parent posts

[MightyYar]

How the hell is pointing out that a politician is a Democrat and not a Republican "flamebait"? Or were you referring to my expression of an opinion that you disagree with?

Are you seriously asking this???

[Nicolas MONNET]

Charges? For what? Is there a law that says that telco's can't tap a line.

Are you trolling or what? What do you think?

There must be some industry protections

[gambolt]

Here's the problem, from the FISA as it stands:

An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover--
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.

OK. Let's do some math here. It was the goal of the NSA to make records of every phone call made within the US and who it was to and from. Let's be conservative and say they only succeeded in recording the phone logs of 10% of the population and were in violation for 4 years.

(300000000/10)((4)365)(100) = $4,380,000,000,000.

Over four trillion dollars in civil liability, and that's being conservative. Even AT&T can't absorb that much. Think about what would happen if AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell all went bankrupt at once. Think about the stock market. Think about the mutual funds which presently hold telecom stock and all the pension funds and non-profit endowments that are currently invested in them. Think about trying to get a job in the tech sector when you're competing with all the unemployed telecom workers. Think about broadband deployment in unserved areas for sure.

Knocking out communications infrastructure is something invading forces do. It's not something that governments are supposed to let happen.

There are some executives who need to have their heads on pikes, but the industry itself needs protection.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[Foobar of Borg]

Knocking out communications infrastructure is something invading forces do. It's not something that governments are supposed to let happen.

There are some executives who need to have their heads on pikes, but the industry itself needs protection.

Why? Why should the government bail out yet another set of mega-corporations? AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell all going bankrupt at once will have an effect on the economy, but those are the breaks. Or do you think big corporations should be immune from prosecution just because of the financial effect it might have on some people?

Also, making these bastards answer for their crimes won't knock out the communications infrastructure. It will still be there, but AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell will have to sell theirs for pennies on the dollar to telcos that didn't violate the law. And, if there is some disruption in communications, maybe people will for once stop watching staring at the tv all the time and actually pay attention to who is running things. It's a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The telecom industry is to telecommunications as the recording industry is to music. Let the bastards hang.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[nahdude812]

So what you're saying is that once a company gets big enough and important enough, they should be granted blanket immunity on all the really bad things they can do, because we just can't live without them, as long as it was sufficiently bad that it would jeopardize operations at the company.

No, the full sanction can and should be brought against the company, and if they honestly cannot afford to cover the costs of their mistake, the government should make the necessary allowances for ensuring the company remains functional, which may include selling the company to the highest bidder.

You can't grant immunity to a company just because they're really important.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[wfeick]

I would think the telecoms have stated company policies to the effect that snooping on people's private communications is not allowed. Given that, they should be able to limit their exposure by terminating the people involved.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems similar to what they cover in the "sensitivity training" that's designed to limit company exposure. As long as employees are made to understand what is not allowed, and if the company takes action when you do something you're not supposed to, the company is not liable.

So in the absence of immunity, I'd expect the companies to quickly limit their exposure by firing the people involved. It's important to make it clear that people personally will be held accountable, not the company.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[DavidTC]

It's not something that governments are supposed to do themselves.

There, I fixed that for you.

And I don't know why we've suddenly starting thinking we should let people get away with crimes because they've committed so many that their punishment is absurd. I mean, if we caught a 9/11 hijacker, 3000+ counts of first degree murder could result in a 10,000 year sentence, or 3000 death penalties, but no one says 'Oh, well, we can't punish that guy then.'.

The telecoms appear to owe more than they are, in fact, worth. The correct move here would be to force them to liquidate all their holdings and stop existing. Set up a trust to operate the company, sell off parts of their network a piece at a time to the highest bidder. Qwest and other ethical companies would step in.

And start criminal proceeding against the officers of the corporations, which should make the shareholder lawsuits against them a lot of fun. (OTOH, it will protect them from the lynch mob.)

I'm sorry, but if this was a human being who'd committed somewhere near, and this is in at the low end of possibilities, one billion felonies, their life would be over no matter how lenient we were to them. If there ever was a logical time to argue in favor of corporate death penalties, this is it.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[gambolt]

If this isn't a clear indication of why corporate personhood is fucked up, I don't know what is. The guy who scrubs the toilets in the executive washrooms at AT&T didn't do anything wrong, but he stands lose his job and however much of his retirement plan is invested in the company. He's one of the people who had his phone tapped. The stock holders didn't do anything wrong. The people who expect the terms of their cell phone contracts to be honored didn't do anything wrong. When a corporate "person" breaks the law, it's not the actual parties who are responsible that pay the price. It's everybody else. The responsible CEOs will get five years worth of bonuses lumped together under the guise of a severance package. $5 says they go on to work for Halliburton and Bechtel in Dubai where they can't be served with subpoenas.

I'm all for justice, but justice this ain't.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[gambolt]

I want the responsible CEOs and the politicians who were giving them a reach-arounds to spend the rest of their lives in jail, Bush and Cheney included.

I don't want an Enron ending where a couple yahoos spend five years in club fed while most of the guilty parties skate and 100,000 people have their lives ruined.

Bankrupting the telecos is not in the interest of the greater good. Neither is having taxpayers pay trillions to bail them out after the lawsuits with half that going to lawyers. Shielding the telecos from liability seems like the best of only shitty options.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[Atario]

Think about what would happen if AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell all went bankrupt at once. Think about the stock market. Think about the mutual funds which presently hold telecom stock and all the pension funds and non-profit endowments that are currently invested in them. Think about trying to get a job in the tech sector when you're competing with all the unemployed telecom workers. Think about broadband deployment in unserved areas for sure.

I'm sure they'll all continue to operate perfectly well indefinitely, under receivership.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[Reivec]

Sadly, I have to agree here. I am an american citizen but I would rather the country go through a depression and be attacked by every terrorist around than to keep being a corrupt peice of crap. America DESERVES to go down for its misdeeds. If should serve as a lesson to later generations and countries that if you act like this, it will bite you in the ass.

Nothing in America will change until people's wallets are effected. That pretty much implies that it will take a depression before things will ever get better.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[DavidTC]

Criminal (as opposed to mere negligent and stupid) actions by executive officers can pierce the corporate veil and make them personally liable in shareholder lawsuits.

That's why I wanted the government to charge the officers with a violation of the law. I don't care if they plea-bargain out of it, because the second they're actually found guilty of that, shareholders can sue them for destroying AT&T. For, basically, the entire net worth of AT&T.

I.e., my plan is to punish the company by distributing its money and assets to the people it spied on, which would result in shareholders hold worthless 'goddamn pieces of paper' (ha). Then the government arrests the officers for allowing this illegal activity, and they probably plea out, but that doesn't matter, because now the shareholders can go after their asserts personally.

It also might be fun to impeach them. There's not actually anything in the Constitution that says you can't preemptively impeach people, and thus keep from holding any office of honor, trust or profit from that point forward. People assume there is, but it's already been decided that you can impeach people after they've already left office, and there's no logical reason it wouldn't apply to people before they reach office.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent +1 Chaotic Neutral.

Re:There must be some industry protections

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Think about what would happen if AT&T, Verizon and South Central Bell all went bankrupt at once. Think about the stock market. Think about the mutual funds which presently hold telecom stock and all the pension funds and non-profit endowments that are currently invested in them. Think about trying to get a job in the tech sector when you're competing with all the unemployed telecom workers.

Why is it when I advocate stricter laws governing corporate behavior, I'm guilty of the ultimate crime of "interfering with the free market" yet I am expected to bail out companies because if they fail they take out the country with them. If a company, or industry, is important enough to need a bailout, they are important enough to lose their absolute freedom as well.

Re:He supports the Genocide of the Palestinians

[MightyYar]

What genocide of the Palestinians? I'm not exactly happy with their condition, but to call it a genocide is pretty stupid. Last I checked, their population is increasing faster than the Jewish population. That is hardly a genocide.

As for Iraq, I think that "pulling out" in terms of leaving the place a big mess is a big mistake - regardless of whether or not we should be there in the first place. We need to take responsibility and clean up after ourselves, not create a shitstorm and leave.

We are concerned over the telecoms because...

[Spy der Mann]

We should be concerned over the telecoms so they can't be bullied by the NSA into doing evil. I agree, it's the Executive who makes them do it. But that's what the balance of powers is for, so one branch of the govt can't abuse that power. This isn't just about punishing the abusers, but also to PREVENT that abuse. If telecoms can be legally punished for following orders (even if they go against the Law), they'll think twice before doing it. And that's a good thing. After all, what's left of a gang leader without the gang?

We all know how this is going to turn-out...

[divisionbyzero]

The Democrats will cave again to the mythical, all-mighty filibuster. It doesn't seem like the Democrats got as much mileage out of that threat as the Republicans are. So are the Democrats spineless or is something else going on? It's especially pathetic because the public could really get behind this one and it's an opportunity for the Democrats to make it seem Republicans are beholden to special interests and corrupt (despite the fact that many Democrats are just as bad). And this I think brings us to the real issue. The Democrats say they want to prosecute the Telcos but they don't really because they are just as owned. So instead they blame the bogey-man, filibuster.

Corruption and cowardice abound. Pathetic.

Re:We all know how this is going to turn-out...

[CensorshipDonkey]

The Democrats will cave again to the mythical, all-mighty filibuster

Pray that they do, because it's the Democrats filibustering bad legislation this time (instead of Republicans filibustering good legislation). The Democrats are trying to block the bill with telecom amnesty presented by Democratic Senate leadership (Harry Reid).

Re:We all know how this is going to turn-out...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the Democrat house speaker in G.W.Bush's pocket? I don't know this to be certain, but it sure looks like it to me!

Re:We all know how this is going to turn-out...

[jonatha]

The Democrats will cave again to the mythical, all-mighty filibuster.

Good.

The filibusterer is Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, and he's filibustering so that the bill granting retroactive immunity won't be passed...

Re:We all know how this is going to turn-out...

[dkarma]

Well you're right and you're wrong.
Some facts about this bill.

1. The bill put forward by Harry Reid as the main bill is the one presented by the republicans and dick cheney...sooo its the bad bill that gives immunity to the telcos and bushco (BAD BILL)
2. The Democrats to defeat the bad bill put forward by Reid must be filibustered BY the democrats OR they need 60 votes to defeat the telecom amendment to that bill.

Long story short, yeah we're screwed.

Re:We all know how this is going to turn-out...

[divisionbyzero]

That's great. I didn't think any Democrat would have the guts to do it.

Anyhow, my point was that they included the amnesty in order to avoid a Republican filibuster, but now that they have included it they are going to have a Democratic filibuster. Sweet.

Swoosh

[ichigo 2.0]

Went the joke over the moderator's heads.

Letters to your Senator

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked as an intern on the hill (the ones who actually sort all of your letters, and faxes), I can tell you that unless you personally know someone up there your letter (by itself) means little, no matter how it is sent, most likely it will be logged into a database program and assigned a basic form letter reply.

A letter writing campaign may change a Congressman's mind if he gets enough correspondence from registered voters in his district, but a Senator isnt going to change his mind on a major issue like this due to correspondence from voters. Still though its good to voice your opinion.

See Section 222 of the Communications Act

[DeadCatX2]

So, sorry to say it, but if telco's freely give information they own to the feds without a warrant, then no law has been broken.

Wrong. They might not be bound by the Bill of Rights, but there are other (federal!) laws that apply. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html

Here, allow me to quote it for you.

Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.

Free Joe !

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that Joseph Nacchio, CEO of Qwest communications, was prosecuted and sent to prison for securities fraud because he refused to cooperate and help Bush spy on American citizens. Ed Whitacre and Dave Dorman of AT&T are the real criminals. Free Joe!

Some of the supporters...

[Cerberus7]

I don't know if there are more who support this, but look at the letter here to see a list of Senators who are also a part of Senator Dodd's cause. I don't know who among them will be involved directly in the filibuster, but they all support the Judiciary Committee's version of the FISA revisions.

Re:Some of the supporters...

[mattt79]

Thanks! One of my senators (Ben Cardin) is on the list and I thanked him in the email I sent.

We never took responsibility before...

[FatSean]

...why start now? See: Afghanistan and the rise of Osama BinLaden. The Israel problem is the same as the Iraq problem. Idealistic simpletons ignored their betters and went ahead with an ill-advised plan that had a high 'feel good' factor.

Supporting the Israel with exponentially more money that is given to the Palestinians ensures the Israelies will be able to kill way more Palestinians than Palestinians can kill Israelies. Israel expands into Palestinian lands, refusing to give up the 'captured lands' because the Palestinians did not deserve land they could not hold. Oh the irony from a group of people who couldn't hold their 'holy land' and had to have it given to them like a welfare handout.

Whatever, I don't care for one side or the other, I'd just like to see my taxes given away in a more equitable fashion to all parties involved.

Re:We never took responsibility before...

[MightyYar]

...why start now? You answered your own question. Learn from our mistakes... Just because we've made mistakes in the past does not mean that they should be repeated over and over.

Idealistic simpletons ignored their betters and went ahead with an ill-advised plan that had a high 'feel good' factor. It's very hard to argue with you on this - it is quite obvious that Iraq was handled poorly and naively. However, I would describe an immediate pullout from Iraq at this time as "ill advised with a high 'feel good' factor", at least in certain circles.

Israel expands into Palestinian lands, refusing to give up the 'captured lands' because the Palestinians did not deserve land they could not hold. Oh the irony from a group of people who couldn't hold their 'holy land' and had to have it given to them like a welfare handout. I think that you are grossly simplifying the situation over there. The British administered the whole territory, and before that the Ottomans, and before that the... you get the idea - there hasn't been any kind of independent state there in modern times, Jewish or Palestinian or otherwise. The British tried to partition the land into Palestinian and Jewish areas, and they failed to find a solution that satisfied both parties. At that point, they hucked it over the fence to the newly-formed UN. The UN basically just split the land in half and gave it to the respective parties. The Arabs invaded, and the Jews won. The Arabs invaded again, and the Jews won again. The territory known as the "West Bank" was Jordanian. If you look at a map of the UN plan, you can see that there was no fucking way it was ever going to work. It's hard to simply blame one single party is this big cluster fuck. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. It doesn't help that the neighbors all suck. Seems like the natural thing to do would be merge the West Bank with Jordan - but Jordan doesn't like Palestinians either, and merging the West Bank in would make Jordan majority-Palestinian. See where I'm going? That's right, even when the West Bank was controlled by Jordan (until 1967) they were still an "occupied" land. The Palestinians get shit on no matter what.

Anyway, I don't know that the solution is. I don't see how a Palestinian state can survive without free access between the West Bank and Gaza. And I don't see how you can have free access between Gaza and the West Bank without also having free access to Israel. I don't see Israel granting free access until the terror threat is reduced. I don't see the terror threat reduced until independence. No wonder the British hucked it over the fence to the UN!

If I were emperor, I'd probably make Palestine a country, build a highway between the West Bank and Gaza, put up a 30-mile fence, make Jerusalem a UN-administered city (the whole thing), and tell Israel to get over it.

Re:We never took responsibility before...

[wilec]

" make Jerusalem a UN-administered city (the whole thing), and tell Israel to get over it."

And everyone else can get over it as well. You are first person besides myself I have heard this from. I came to this conclusion years ago. Don't know how workable it is though. Just because the idea appeals to someone of reason, well you know the rest. Near as I can tell all the religions of the descendants of Abraham have insistent and powerful radical factions intent upon using this land to facilitate one or another horrendously bloody prophecy, and they see such as a good thing.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Re:We never took responsibility before...

[MightyYar]

I didn't come up with it on my own - it was the original UN plan for Jerusalem to be "neutral". Tom Clancy even wrote a book where Jerusalem became self-administered, like the Vatican... right down to the Swiss Guard.

Like I said, the plan would only work if I were emperor. Otherwise you will never make all factions happy. You might be able to do it with a joint Israeli-Palestinian referendum, because I found the bulk of people in both places to be quite (comparatively) moderate. It's just that both political systems have been hijacked by a very vocal and motivated hard-line minority.

Re:We never took responsibility before...

[wilec]

Thanks for the bit of history lesson concerning the original UN plans for the city. I thought my idea was original but who knows where we get the basis for some of the ideas that we form. I have read some Clancy, but not much and I don't remember that one, I have a friend that reads everything he writes I ask about the novel.

Yea well emperors usually were not too worried about keeping everyone happy, just enough of the right ones. Then again the most successful ones managed to keep the majority pretty satisfied. There is a lesson there somewhere for those elected or appointed. Boldness and dogged persistence are admirable traits in a leader, but only in those studious enough to make wise and rational decisions.

Most, that is the majority of people everywhere I have lived or visited have been reasonable people with moderate views on life unless you outright harass them on one or another touchy topic. Its the 1% rule, or one bad apple rule, wherein a selected few messes things up for everyone. Thankfully there is usually the same percentage or better of folk out there that are willing to shoulder the extra burden or make the necessary sacrifice, while the majority in the middle continue to slug away at their lives often blissfully ignorant that there was a problem at all. As for the topic at hand, Jerusalem, there are third party players that are consistently mucking things up as well. And so it goes...

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

nail 'em to the wall!

[carpe.cervisiam]

I work for one of the telcos in question (AT&T) and even I think they should have the book thrown at them for trampling our civil rights at the behest of our government. Yes I am fully aware that I could very well lose my job due to layoffs as a result of the fallout that would occur if the telcos are not granted immunity. Yes, i'm okay with that. I would much rather have to find a different job than have violations of my civil rights officially sanctioned by the Congress. Yes I have written to my congress critters to let them know.

Get Yer Tinfoil Hats!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone put on your hats and chant "Omegachron" over and over so that you can put a nasty hex on all those evil nasty companies and the CIA/FBI/NSA and whatever other agency you think is going through your underwear drawer.

the real reason for the puch for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Many observers say the Whitehouse, and loyal Republicans, are behind this effort. The reason is to cover up the fact that the Bush administration dramatically increased warrant-less surveillance BEFORE the 9/11 attacks. The dozens of lawsuits, if allowed to proceed, will unearth a lot of documentation of the executive branch's survailence activities.

These people make Nixon look like Jimmy Carter...

Re:Nice exclamation point - MOD PARENT WAY UP

[RevHawk]

Thank you!!! This is the first I've seen this mentioned on this page. I was about to mention it myself. NO POST FACTO LAWS. You CANNOT create a law to act retroactively. Period. It's clear, it's concise. All other arguments aside THIS IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I don't tend to be a die hard constitutionalist. At least, I wasn't - until I began to see that many many many people had a point. If you give an inch, they will take a mile. I'd like my mile back please. I'm only going to ask nicely so many times.

Re:Nice exclamation point - MOD PARENT WAY UP

[Anonymous Coward]

All other arguments aside THIS IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Err, did you read what he posted? The constitutional restriction against ex post facto laws is specifically regarding making things illegal retroactively. Making them not-illegal retroactively is perfectly fine.

Re:He's a war-monger

[MightyYar]

Sorry, but while there are very heavily Jewish sections of CT, it is only about 1% Jewish overall - not enough to elect Joe. In fact, there are about the same number of Muslims.

Holy Crap!

[I kan Spl]

I never thought I would see it, but Sen. Barbara Boxter(D-CA) is actually helping the filibuster. :)

Obama's response to my EFF form letter

[HorsePunchKid]

This was the first time I've actually contacted my senators. I have not heard anything from Dick Durbin's office yet, but Obama's office had some encouraging things to say in a well-written response. Among other things:

Congress is working on reforms to the FISA bill to be enacted before the expiration of the current legislation. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the "Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007" (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for administration officials who may have acted illegally. The Senate committees on Intelligence and the Judiciary have since approved proposals with their own reforms to FISA. The debate over retroactive immunity is still ongoing, and I will support a filibuster should legislation that includes such a provision come to the Senate floor.

(emphasis mine)

You have a point.

[FatSean]

I didn't think it was 1%, but they have an excellent voting record while other groups barely get 40-50% to the polls.

Re:You have a point.

[MightyYar]

Even if their effective 2% was able to sway the vote, I'd still point to his defeat in the primary as contrary evidence. Jews tend to be Democrats, and yet he lost the Democratic primary despite being a popular incumbent. If anyone was getting out the vote, it was the MoveOn crowd - who you may have inferred that I don't find very constructive.

it's kind of confusing from a partisan view

[Trepidity]

On the one hand, the leading opponent of this bill is Chris Dodd (D-CT). On the other hand, the person who wrote and pushed the bill is John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and the person who brought it to the floor and is currently trying to engineer its passage is Harry Reid (D-NV). As far as I can tell the Republicans are mostly in favor, but since they don't control the agenda or any of the committees the real power struggle is within different factions of the Democratic Party.

Basically this bill only: 1) exists; and 2) is up for a vote because the Democratic leadership supports it. But it is only in danger of not passing because a sizeable Democratic minority opposes it. So if it passes it'll be mostly some Democrats' fault, and if it fails, credit will mostly go to some (other) Democrats.

and for the shame list

[Trepidity]

The "bad" version of the bill was written and passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee 13-2. Chairman and primary evildoer on the committee is John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV). Six of the eight Democrats voted in favor: Rockefeller, Feinstein (CA), Bayh (IN), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), and Whitehouse (RI). Two voted against: Feingold (WI) and Wyden (OR). In addition all seven Republicans voted in favor.

that's not really what this is about

[Trepidity]

If it were a narrow bill specifically exempting telecomm employees from personal liability it might be worth discussing. But this bill is mainly about protecting telecomm companies from having to pay out monetary damages in large class-action lawsuits, like the one the EFF filed against AT&T.

Some people are listening.

[KarmaOverDogma]

I contacted one of my Senators, Sherrod Brown (D-OH). For the record, he is supporting Chris Dodd's (D-CONN) Filibuster of the telecomm immunity provision. I am unsure of Voinovich's (R-OH) position, but suspect he's for the immunity.

Fear + Anger = Cowardice

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't even understand how people can, with a straight face, offer up the excuse that you just did. It makes no sense.

It's because they're cowardly. Think about it: it's a nameless, faceless enemy that wishes to kill us. Anyone could be a terrorist. You could be killed at any moment without a chance to defend yourself. They won't fight fair.

Don't misunderstand. That excuse they offered disgusts me profoundly. I consider it treason against the ideals America was founded upon. I know that that misdirected fear will only hurt innocent people and will do little, if anything, to actually stop the terrorists. I also know that they'll rarely, if ever, admit that fear, masking it with anger.

But that doesn't mean I don't understand why they feel that way.

The Senate Vote

[Presto Vivace]

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 2248

Re:Nice exclamation point - MOD PARENT WAY UP

[DavidTC]

While retroactive amnesty is legal, it's also worth pointing out, just in case these asshats who call themselves Democrats pass this and we have to kick them, that it's also legal to make things re-illegal. So if we have to kick them out and get a real Congress, we can repeal this.

Under the current theory of 'ex post facto', you cannot increase the punishment for acts higher than what they were at the time the act was committed. The theory is that free people have the right to know how much they would be punished for something. (Or even punished at all.) If they cannot know that (And we're assuming that people cannot see the future.), they cannot behave within the law.

There is nothing, however, forbidding punishment from going down and then back up, as long as it does not increase higher than what the punishment was at the time the act was committed. The telecoms knew it was illegal then, and any challenges to it based on ex port facto would fail.

Ironically, if this actually had been immunity instead of amnesty, it couldn't be recriminalized. You can't revoke immunity unless the person violates their immunity agreement.

HOWTO

[Wylfing]

I have posted similar kinds of things before. Calling your Senator's office is quite painless. Please note: my brother worked for some time on capitol hill and gave me the advice that I continue to live by today. Senators rarely have enough time to formulate an opinion an an issue, or a bill, and they rely on their staff to inform them. A major way that the staff is informed is through telephone calls and postal letters. Email is largely ineffective.

Now, most telephone calls that a Senate office receives are from crackpots. These people either do not live in the State for which the Senator is a representative (very common), or they are incoherent, or something else. For the average non-brain-dead citizen this is a major Ray Of Hope. All you have to do is sound intelligent and informed and your opinion will automatically be counted at the top of the heap. Oh, and please be from the State you are calling about!

Here is how I called my Senator (Herb Kohl) this time:

1. AID: Good afternoon, Herb Kohl's office.
2. ME: Hi, my name is Brian and I am a Wisconsin resident* and registered voter. I am generally a supporter of Senator Kohl. Even though I am an independent, I tend to vote Democrat, and I would like to continue to give my support to Senator Kohl but I may not be able to unless his voting record matches my convictions.
3. AID: OK.
4. ME: I would voice my opinion on a bill before the Senate. Bill S.2248.
5. AID: Alright.
6. ME: I would urge Senator Kohl to side with Senator Dodd and vote No. Telecommunication companies do not need immunity from prosecution if they have done nothing wrong. I strongly suggest that Senator Kohl allow the courts to determine whether or not the telecommunication companies violated the law of the United States.
7. AID: Great. I will let the Senator know your opinion!
8. ME: Sounds good. Have a great day.
9. AID: You too.

That's all there is to it. Easy as pie. Don't be frightened of it, it's terrifically easy.

* Go ahead and give your full name and address just to let the aid know you really are from the State you claim to be.

What good will suing telecoms do?

[TallDave]

A few rich lawyers will get richer, a few more suspected terrorists will go unmonitored, everyone's phone bills will go up... /victory?

We were all freaked out after 9/11. We all, Dem and Repub, did what we thought we had to in order to avoid another 9/11. If we're going to pass laws now saying "maybe we went too far," OK, great, I agree on privacy grounds. And if we're not going to waterboard any more than the three people we already did, okay, moral high ground, and maybe we can still avoid terrorist attacks without the intel that provided in the past. But let's not play gotcha in the graveyard.

Re:What good will suing telecoms do?

[sgt_doom]

Excuse me, but you are ignoring that fact that Bush approached the telcoms within the first month he assumed the presidency - long before 9/11/01. Also, there have been many more than just "three people" waterboarded. Read any news over the past 4 years, for gosh sakes????? So WTF does this have to do with avoiding terrorist attacks? And WTF is any proof to suggest it has?

Re:What good will suing telecoms do?

[LukeCage]

Could you please explain what you're trying to say here, because I honestly have no idea.

Re:What good will suing telecoms do?

[Qzukk]

and maybe we can still avoid terrorist attacks without the intel that provided in the past.

Don't worry, it didn't provide us with intel any more than me twisting your arm behind your back makes me your Uncle.

Efforts to stall Telecomm Immunity bill failed

[KarmaOverDogma]

Senator Chris Dodd's (D-CN) effort to filibuster the Telcomm immunity provision in the U.S. Senate failed by a Cloture vote of 76 to 10. The (amended) bill will now be considered on the full Senate floor.

More details can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/washington/17cnd-nsa.html?hp

Real life is often stranger than fiction...

[Andor]

Maybe not everyone is spending all their time on either side of the conspiracy, but there's a good reason artists and writers can often show more 'truth' through fiction than what is 'real'.

Reality does not equal Truth!

Why is it?

[Andor]

After all you said, why is it "still ... good to voice you opinion"??? It seems like your comment points out exactly why it is NO use to voice your opinion.

naive cynacism

[Presto Vivace]

Actually the data base of constituent mail is kept on the Senate server, while the donor data base is maintained by the Senator's campaign organization. Any contact between the two is illegal, this particular law is enforced.

Re:naive cynacism

[sgt_doom]

Gee....and of course we have absolute faith in our elected officials. Besides Bush and those missing 5 million e-mails, missing CIA tapes which were officially ruled (by federal judge and Senators) to be NOT destroyed, and a myriad other events, one can recall that Clinton Administration prior (Flight 800 coverup - what was up with that, anyway?) the diabolical support for NAFTA, GATT, WTO, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the Financial Services Modernization Act (these both pertain to rollback of FDR's New Deal leglistation to avoid the NEXT GREAT DEPRESSION), etc., etc., etc......Oh yeah, and those "terrorist" suspects from Liberty City in Miami - other places in the country we refer to them as impoverished street people or transients - who were found either not guilty or a locked jury - same thing....and all those other phony "terrorist" crap Bush has been dealing...and Bush's bizarre and one-of-a-kind "military record".....

update: further consideration postponed until Jan.

[Trepidity]

After Dodd made it sufficiently obvious that he was going to drag this out all week until the end of the session, while there are still other bills Reid would like to get on the agenda, Reid gave in for now and postponed further consideration of the bill until the next session in January.

oh, you fool you

[m2943]

You thought that was Joe Lieberman? :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3712993&mesg_id=3713030