Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms
Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.
Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).
Is there any chance the House will stop this? Anyone want to march to the Capitol?!
http://use.perl.org
Welcome to the Police State.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I helped vote in this Democratic congress under the belief they would change things, and the best they could do was come up with 31 votes? Business as usual, I guess.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Didn't the US just fight a big fucking war with the English a couple hundred years ago along the same lines?
I'm serious. I know all of you are paying taxes, and shit like this sure as hell means the common guys isn't represented. Time for a few tea parties, methinks.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
The provision was not in the house passed bill. So, it has to go to committee for compromise. If we're lucky this can be killed there, and the final bill will be vetoed. They're on the radar of everyone and know what they do shines on their candidate now more than ever. So, who knows they may do what their constituents want.
But, my pockets aren't as deep as brother bells... So, I'm not betting on it
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Sen Bond said "permitting lawsuits against the companies would ... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."
Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*
*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"
Why are retroactive laws even possible in the US system? I'm really wondering about that. Where I come from, the laws at the time of your action count, both for and against you.
What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).
Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.
(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Hillary has been going on and on about the number of times Obama did not vote when he was in the Illinois Senate. Hopefully he'll use this as ammunition.
End transmission.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There aren't any clauses in there that could be interpreted as "unless it legalizes an act", so ANY law that changes the legal ramifications of an act that occurred before that law was passed is unconstitutional.
Of course, the Constitution is an optional, irrelevant document, so none of it really matters. Just look at (Amendments 1,2,9):
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This point has already been mentioned on Slashdot before. As I said then, it is incorrect. The prohibition on ex-post facto laws means something cannot be retroactively made illegal; it can, however, be made retroactively legal.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The vote you linked to is actually a vote to invoke cloture, meaning that the bill can no longer be filibustered.
Perhaps everyone should start voting first before we start assuming the government is broken?
Voting is irrelevant. Rule of Law is not upheld by voting, it is upheld by bringing criminals to justice. When criminals control the dispensing of justice you have a broken system. Our forefathers rightly divided the government to institute checks and balances but what happens when all three refuse to maintain balance? You have the "nuclear option", clearly defined in our Declaration of Indepence; the governed must throw off their leaders.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Only 26 US Senators stood up and voted to put a hold on this legislation, including both of Washington State's US Senators and Senator Barack Obama.
... not present.
Senator Clinton was
Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The government and corporations should not be "friends", and should not be in the habit of "helping" one another out.
Correct. Telco's do not need to protect my rights. They only need to obey that law, which they didn't do and like everyone else, they should face the consequences of there actions.
when I ask, "Do you think the constitution is an outdated, unimportant document now?"
It amazes me all of his detractors that call him an extremist who is blindly supporting some outdated, irrelevant document -- people who then complain about this stuff being passed. Don't you realize that this is the kind of thing Ron Paul would stop?
This was not a vote on an amendment. This was a vote on cloture. Obama voted nay, same as did Dodd and Feingold.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Congratulations, bin Laden, you've won.
Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.
Yes and these lawsuits are in fact the point of the spear aimed at the root of the problem.
Punishing the telcos and getting damages isn't the important part. It's something that should be done, but it is really just a means to an end. The ultimate point is to find out through discovery what exactly the government did. The aim is to get evidence out into the open, in the public record, of the government's malfeasance.
Once the spear point has pierced the government's veil of secrecy, then we can drive it deeper into the government itself. With the information revealed in the suits, it may be possible to sue the government, get court rulings about the legality of the administration's practices, and ultimately set up the possibility of future prosecution. If it can create enough of a scandal to cost politicians and bureaucrats their careers, while not optimal, that can still serve as a check to keep the government in line for a while.
This is also, ultimately, what the immunity provisions are about. It's nothing to do with protecting telcos from having to pay damages, that's just the means to an end. It's all about preventing anyone from discovering what the government really did -- they even admit it when talking about why the provision is necessary, though of course they couch it in "national security secrets" terms. Bush and team are trying to cover their own ass, and cowardly Congress is going along with it.
By the way, you raise a good point about Google and China. Personally I don't forgive Google, but at the same time I recognize the realities of working with a government like China's, one such reality being that censoring the people is not illegal. At the same time our government is not China's, our government is supposed to respect human rights, and more importantly it is illegal for them not to just as it is illegal for AT&T. And also because our government is not China's, we the people should be able to discover when our government or corporations break the law and demand redress. Which, coming full circle, is exactly what these lawsuits are about.
The enemies of Democracy are
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
Yes, financial penalties for telcos who participated in illegal wiretapping programs will affect their willingness to participate in such programs in the future.
If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.
If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.
If harsh penalties are ascribed, the same risk\benefit calculations will occur, but corporate leaders will be much less likely to approve cooperation with the government as far as illegal wiretapping is concerned.
You know, I didn't think I could answer your questions, and I know I don't have all the details, but I was surprised at how much I have gleaned from this ongoing frakas...
1: AT&T is the one that gets all the Press, Qwest I think is out of it, with a boned CEO, but I'm sketchy on who all the players are.
2: Again, sketchy on this, but I believe it goes along the lines of: copying the communications of innocent, law abiding American citizens too government agencies for their perusal/review, with no clearly defined limits on retention or use (see 4th amendment in the bill of rights).
3: I know the EFF is big on this, pretty sure the ACLU is also participating. Probably others.
4: To hold those who have broken the law accountable via fiscal penalty? Yeah, I think that sounds about right.
Oddly enough, the only questions you asked that matter are 2 and 4. Who the players are is moot really.
Speaking as a well-meaning (or mean spirited, can never remember) libritarian, I can tell you that no one who has any interest in the goings on of government is 'ignorant of the real dangers in the world'. We all accept danger ever day in real life, from driving to work, to soap in the shower, to fat in our diets. All of those have killed a lot more of us than any enemy of the US ever has, or will. Especially if the government does not serve the will of the people, because at that point, there really is no US. There will just be a body of people living on the same land mass in a state of fear; and those real threats will have won.
Remember, terrorism only works if your fear keeps you from living life. So get out of your bubble, use your spine, and accept the risk and knowledge that bad things will happen.
You should never make any long term decisions in a crisis. People are horrible at it and tend to be highly irrational at such times. Look how badly we have done after 9/11. How much worse would we have done with a more fluid government system? That is why we have checks and balances (among other reasons), why Supreme Court appointments are for life, and many other things. At the same time, the system does allow slow change, through new laws, amendments, new appointments to the judiciary over time, and so forth. Our system has changes a good bit since the Founders' day (some to the good, at this precise moment, much to the bad). Our government and Constitution is not perfect, certainly, but the Founder's did a pretty good job, if you think about it, of anticipating a lot of potential problems, quite a few of which warnings we have ignored. Sure, it can use touching up in places (I can think of several off hand), but if you think about the number of popular revolutions which ended in total chaos and bloodbaths (e.g. France, Russia, China), we didn't do badly at all.