Slashdot Mirror
Telco Immunity Goes To Full Debate
Dr. Eggman notes an Ars Technica analysis of the firefight that is the current Congressional debate over granting retrospective immunity to telecoms that helped the NSA spy on citizens without warrants. A Republican cloture motion, which would have blocked any further attempts to remove the retroactive immunity provision, has failed. This controversial portion of the Senate intelligence committee surveillance bill may now be examined in full debate. At the same time, a second cloture motion — filed by Congressional Democrats in an effort to force immediate vote on a 30 day extension to the Protect America Act — also failed to pass. The Protect America Act has been criticized for broadly expanding federal surveillance powers while diminishing judicial oversight. While the failure of this second cloture motion means the Protect America Act might expire, a vote tomorrow on a similar motion in the House will likely bring the issue back into the Senate in time. It seems, according to the article, that both parties feel that imminent expiration of the Protect America Act is a disaster for intelligence gathering, and each side blames the other as progress grinds to a halt."
If it passes I wish that I had enough money to hire a lawyer and take this law to the Supreme Court as I do believe that somewhere in some old document called the Constitution it say something about not passing laws ex post facto. It's not like it'd be hard to win either, it's pretty clear about that in the Constitution, unless everything is truly corrupted and there's just no hope left.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
I really wish they would start giving honest descriptive names to Bills, rather than marketing names. Seriously, just like the new 'Economic Stimulus' bill, that should be 'It's an Election Year, here's a handout that won't really affect the economy much'. Bills to impose new taxes should have names like 'Bend over for us please' or 'Yeah, we're screwing you again.'
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, stop calling it a peacock. Yes, I know it will never happen. One can fantasize.
More surveillance and less oversight?
Who could vote no?
And after it takes effect, who would dare to vote no?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Now we can't retract the retrospective immunity they were granted without possibly undermining the US government's promises even further... not that the telcos should have necessarily been granted it in the first place, but now there is another thing that is catching us up.
Belongs in the same category as retroactive prosecution and bills of attainder - things your Constitution bars, doesn't it?.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
Immunity for the mercennaires, immunity for the snitches, -- leaves no room to hide for the real criminals - me and you buddy.
As those cowardly French say: eqality, liberty, and fraternity...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Bottom line is: there needs to be a way to be able to monitor terrorist activity, criminal actvity... ANY KIND OF THREAT BEING PLANNED.
I'm as much a freedom-loving, flag-waving, baseball-hot-dogs-and-apple-pie loving American as the next Yankee here, but ya know... it's kinda hard to have a debate about civil liberties if you've been blown to smithereens by a nuclear suitcase, or had your crops poisoned by a stolen airplane dusting all your corn with Lord Knows What.
We've been damned fortunate and thwarted every single planned attack since 9/11... we've batted 1.000 so far. At some point, we're going to be nailed again unless a way is found to MONITOR future plans.
I'm not suggesting we totally roll over to the authorities and have Big Brother watch every single thing every American does. But Common Sense dictates that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
There should be a way - there MUST be a way - to safeguard our security, while safeguarding everyday civil liberties. I don't buy the argument that they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think Uncle Sam gives a rodent's rear end about when my wife's parents are coming to visit us, and when we have to pick them up from the airport... but you can bet if someone there wants to fly that plane into the Sears Tower, I damn well want Uncle Sam to be able to find out and know about it.
Make the tools available, for crying out loud.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Just remember, when you are reading about the fall of the American constitution that it's not because any person involved is inherently bad. Quite the opposite. Most of them are good. They love America generally speaking and want the best for their people. They have to. Power only works when you respect the people you control. When you approach each person involved in this situation and ask them just what the fuck are they thinking, they would probably tell you, and honestly at that, that they are doing the best they can for the people they represent.
I'm not saying stupidity is an excuse. I'm just saying that the supposed "inherent evil" that people want to believe politicians all possess isn't the problem. The problem is political ignorance and an extreme distance from reality that accompanies the higher eschelons of power.
This is also, I would imagine, why the fore-fathers imagined a country run by the stronger states, not controlled by a stronger federal government. Keep the power closer to the people, at lower levels, and the reality is much harder to miss.
With the US going in the opposite direction of China, Iran, North Korea etc they will in a short timeframe meet halfways. We will have a world where the western world inches towards the banana republics and opressors while they go slowly towards democracy. This is interesting times to live in. One cant stop wondering if it will stop halfways or if a time down the road we westerners will be the new "muslims".
HTTP/1.1 400
Was thinking along the same lines myself. It's scary stuff though. Take the PATRIOT act. It contains a lot of nasty, freedom stealing measures, extensions of government power etc etc.
But it got through. Why? Because in a time of national panic (9/11) you wouldn't vote against an act called the Patriot act would you? You are a patriot aren't you?
Jingoism and marketing need to die.
Granting pardons is the duty of the President or head of the executive branch.
Granting immunity is the domain of the Judicial branch.
Nowhere in here is the Legislative branch involved.
It's never to late to add retroactive immunity!
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
I liked the comment by Sen. Bond (R-Mo.) that failure to give telecom providers retroactive immunity for any crimes they may have committed would be
He is saying -- he is actually saying -- that Congress has to prevent its own laws from being applied to a corporation, because if the courts are allowed to proceed with civil lawsuits, angry mobs of disaffected citizens will storm the corporate headquarters of AT&T and Verizon and burn them to the ground because they oppose intelligence gathering. We must circumvent the legal process to soothe the hordes of Americans who are furious at the NSA. This is surely the most bizarre panem-et-circenses ever.
Or maybe he's saying Al Qaeda sleeper cells will launch attacks on key NOCs for our internet backbone... the only thing holding them back is they're waiting for word to come that a civil lawsuit has been filed against the owning corporation and depositions have been submitted and discovery is proceeding, Allahu Akbar!
AT&T -- Your world. Delivered. To the NSA.
They have reduced us to craven cowards willing to give up our birthright for the illusion of security.
Ask anyone who was brought up on the wrong side of the iron curtain. When you have a government with that much power, lots of innocent people suffer and even die.
In any event, the government will use the 'information' any way they see fit. That includes lying about things like weapons of mass destruction. No matter what else happens, the increased power will feed the bureaucracy and bork the economy.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." often attributed to Ben Franklin.
But the thing is that Congress-critters are a lot smarter than you think. Like most people (not all), they have their own self interest at heart. They may want to protect their business constituents, that's all. And gosh, you don't want someone with all that money to be donating it to someone that may not be able to help in the next election, do you?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
So, you want to join the debate about this bill but you don't care what anyone thinks about the bill? Won't that sort of hinder your ability to engage in rational discourse?
See? The discussion is over the attempt to rid the bill of a provision protecting telecoms from the consequences of their past criminal activity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with monitoring terrorist activities, apart from the fact that certain members of congress (Jeff Sessions, for example) led by VP Cheney are willing to scuttle the bill if they can't get their friends a "get out of jial free" card.
Uh, what attacks would that be? And how does that have anything to do with the PAA which, as I just pointed out, has little or nothing to do with the telecom immunity? As far as I recall, all of the so-called "threats" that have been thwarted have turned out to be bogus, and none of them--none of them were found using the powers under PAA. So what's the connection?
Perhaps. But even if, as you say, "SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE" a minute's thought leads to the conclusion that giving big corporations a blank check to violate our nations laws probably isn't it.
--MarkusQ
If the Fuck, er, ah, Protect America Act expires, the old FISA law is still in effect. The key difference is oversight. The Democrats in the Senate will pretend to put up a brave fight then give Bush everything he wants. We got screwed when Congress rammed the PATRIOT Act I down our throats. Everything else since then has been gravy for them. Makes you wish you were a big fat corporation. After the telecoms get their immunity, other corporations will want the same deal. I hope I'm wrong. I really do.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
The PAA and the attempt to include retroactive immunity is a sham to destroy the constitution. If passed, then it would set a precedent that would allow any corporation to get immunity for their actions. Pure fascism.
Examples would be pollution cleanup, consumer poisoning, and investment fraud. The mess that would result would actually destroy the corporations in the long run, along with the population.
It's a losing game, but short-sighted greed can not see that.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
And people say the system doesn't work! ;-)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Unless you think that warrantless wiretaps are a good idea, the rest of this bill is pretty damn bad as well.
Ubi sunt qui ante nos fuerunt = "Where are those who were before us?"
Retrospective doesn't mean what the author thinks it means. Perhaps the author meant 'retroactive'?
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click....
(sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?'
Son: 'You got him, Pop! Can I shoot the next one?'
Wife: 'You are not taking that to the taxidermist.'
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Retroactive, not retrospective
Enough of this chiseling around. Someone should introduce a bill making GWB above the law, and law as well as in fact. We should spell out the super-capabilities of the Executive, essentially pointing out that we have an elected, term-limited King.
We've just been pussy-footing around for the past 7 years. GWB is very nearly a King already, between Signing Statements and Executive Privilege. The mechanisms of tyranny are in place. The checks and balances of government are broken. So the question becomes, "Do you trust GWB?" as well as, "Do you trust the next President?"
Name a spade a spade, and maybe people will finally wake up to the slippery slope we've been sliding down.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The hypocrisy of Congress cannot by overestimated. Without the moral compass that principles provide, there will always be situations where expediency is unclear.
Good for the gander.
If the government wants to be able to listen in on all my communications, then I want to listen in on all of theirs. I want to know what my employees are doing.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
So the Protect America Act will expire, huh? OK, so what will happen? I think what the congress-people and the potus are afraid of is that if it does expire, nothing will happen. Before the act was in place, the security agencies has enough powers and enough information about an impending strike (that happened on a certain day); they just weren't co-ordinated enough, or agile enough to prevent it.
Why do we have to bear the burden of someone else's disorganization by incursions into our freedoms?
Especially with these "1984"-style naming of legislations - "Patriot" act, "Help America Vote Act", "Protect America Act."
If more people like you who care about privacy issues get out there and put pressure on those wavering Democratic senators who can't quite recall who they answer to, we might actually be able to stop things like this. It's the only way it ever happens.
Leaning on Ds won't work very much. They're just counting votes. Likewise the Rs. Without pricinples, all is expediency.
Uhm...
I said "retroactive". But I'm not sure what the difference is. Both seem to mean applying to events in the past.
I'm not expecting this to fail. There's a lot of lobbying and a lot of money involved. As an employee of one of the telecoms, I can say there's a lot of push from the executive branch (White House) to push this, because a lot of these illegal orders came from them. And before 9/11 even. At least one of ours came in February of '01
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
Republicans!
Romney wins by 5 points over McCain. Rudy a distant third. Huckabee right behind him.
Democrats!
Clinton wins by 10 points. Edwards a very distant third.
"as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them."
What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is it that congress, and the populace aren't trying to solve the freakin' problem?
Why don't people ever stop and ask the question: Why are they so pissed off at us? What have we done to deserve this? If they did, people might actually discover that the terrorist, as well as much of the Middle East, are angry for legitimate reasons.
They're pissed off because of 60 years of brutal US foreign policy in the Middle East. We've overthrown democratic governments. We've installed bloody dictators. We've supported terrorism, and even had proxy wars fought by our "puppets". The Shah of Iran, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein were all funded and supported by the US. We turned a blind eye or even supported their atrocities as long as they were serving US purposes.
This isn't conspiracy theory. It's well documented. Several former CIA experts have written multiple books on this, and the blowback we've been seeing (like 9/11). Our foreign policy there basically amounts to an "the ends justify the means" campaign. It definitely puts all of this in a quite different light once you start researching our history in the region.
What's really sad is that we have not learned our lessons either, as once again we are supporting yet another military dictator to achieve our goals.
They don't hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we've been screwing them over for the better part of a century. Terrorist attacks are a symptom of the problem, and that problem is our aggression and foreign policy.
If you want the threat of terrorism to go down, it's simple. Get out. Leave them alone. Get our bases out the region. Stop supporting murderous dictators like Saddam and the Shah. Stop trying to overthrow their governments. Let them try to figure it out themselves, and stop trying to shove our ideas down their throats. Stop terrorizing them with threats of embargoes and bombings.
Seriously, if another country did half the crap to us as we have done to the Middle East we'd be pretty damned pissed off too.
~X~
~X~
I don't get it. Slashdot seems like great group of thinkers, a strong percentage of whom share a pro-science, pro freedom of speech and habeas corpus, and "global warming is real and we should start doing something" agenda (all anti-bush). But over the last 7 years, as a group, you seem to rant and make jokes, but very few say they're doing anything about it. Cmon, here's some simple petitions that take a freakin minute to fill out with google auto-form.
How many Slashdotters are there anyway? You really think we couldn't make a difference if everyone contributed 5 min to call their reps?
I was finishing my EE degree in 2000, and noticed in EETimes that Gore's responses to their questions sounded OK, but Bush's were non-existent! The biggest engineering periodical in the country, while EE/CS people were leading the nation's longest period of economic prosperity since just after WWII (even minus the bubble, we were leading the world in increasing productivity, which does make America more successful relative the world). Easy no-brainer right? Yeah, I voted Gore, but to my surprise, none of my nerd friends did! Why? "Oh, my vote wont mean anything anyway" Cmon. I bet Floridians thought the same way. If every slashdotter spent 5min a day bothering our congressman, or spreading a little word, or donating a few dollars, I'm sure we could have impeached the ahole after he lied to us to start Vietnam II. I dont care if he wins the war this year - he could have avoided it, raised CAFE and just stop buying gas from impotent Saddam. Would have saved (hundreds of?) thousands of lives, global goodwill, and trillions of dollars of debt (which coincidentally is part of the reason Bush I's economy was shaky when handing it off to Clinton, and now coincidentally our economy is shaky again, hmmmm).
Oh, here's a fun comparison Nixon to Bush