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!

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

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.

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: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.

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?

[squiggleslash]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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: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.

You forgot 1e

[Solandri]

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

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: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: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: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!"

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.