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."

20 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. I did, but it won't matter. by FatSean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  2. Senate contact info by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Senate contact info by techpawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  3. Re:Nice exclamation point by abburdlen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  4. Re:Nice exclamation point by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Without cash good luck... by slashname3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Writing won't work... Try this by CambodiaSam · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  7. Chris Dodd leads the way by Liberaltarian · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  8. Why are we concerned over the telecoms? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why are we concerned over the telecoms? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. Re:Nice exclamation point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:the only common sense reaction by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:Nice exclamation point by abburdlen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  12. Re:Nice exclamation point by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)
  13. Re:no immunity? by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  14. Re:Nice exclamation point by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  15. Re:Nice exclamation point by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  16. Re:the only common sense reaction by KDR_11k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:Nice exclamation point by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  18. Re:There must be some industry protections by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.