Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
Blar.
I read that as "Telecom Immunity Shot Down". Too bad...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Senate contact information
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.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
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!
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.
The Fight for Student Power on Campus: www.forstudentpower.org.
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.
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.
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
What?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ is running a thread where you can post a letter to be read by Senator Dodd during his filibuster.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
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?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
oh okay. They didn't do anything illegal, we can drop the amnesty provisions, they don't need them. Right?
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.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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.
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.
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".
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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?
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
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
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.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
:(){
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"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...
"But this one goes to 11!"
...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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.