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.

Comments

Stunned

[cmefford]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

Re:Stunned

[jo42]

I keep telling you guys to practice your "Heil Bush!". Yet I keep getting mocked and voted/modded down. One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!".

Re:Stunned

[mea37]

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.

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about. Perhaps they could turn around and file a shareholder suit (on the grounds that AT&T worked against shareholder interests by cooperating with and being held liable for the wiretap program), though I'm told those types of suits aren't very common these days.

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself.

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?

What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Naturally those individuals would try to hide behind the shield of corporate liability; I would hope (though I can't remember if it's the case) that taking actions outside of -- and even contrary to -- the corporation's interests would make a case for PCV.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You Sir are a corporate shill.

At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it.

Absolutely not sir.

Both the government that asked them to commit something illegal and the people that actually commited the illegal act (this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal).

Its called a conspiracy sir.

All parties are at fault.

(sorry about spelling at work using IE yuck).

Re:Stunned

[Sponge Bath]

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes

AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.

I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.

Re:Stunned

[Gravatron]

Sorry, but the telecom's had a legal and ethical duty to demand a warrent, and if one could not be presented, to decline to cooperate. Anyone who didn't knew they were breaking the law, and should have to face the results. They deserved to lose millions, as money seems to be the only thing corperations understand, and losing a ton of it would have caused the shareholders to demand future adheriance to the law.

Instead, one of the foundations of our nation is eroded, that is the citizen's protection from search without warrents, and a major crime will go unpunished. This tells the citizens that we are at the mercy of the executive branch, who has time and time again showed that they are above the law.

Re:Stunned

[Xaositecte]

Here's what it boils down to:

1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.

2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.

3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.

4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.

5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.

Therefore:

We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.

Re:Stunned

[Dr. Hellno]

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.

Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.

Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes bad ones?

Don't I feel suckered

[bconway]

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.

Taxation without representation

[Captain Splendid]

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.

Glimmer of hope

[techpawn]

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

According to the article

[91degrees]

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"

info request

[Tom]

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?

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Shakrai]

Is there any chance the House will stop this?

Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.

Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?

Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[RobBebop]

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).

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[evil agent]

Clinton: Did not vote

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.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

Last year, there was one big-ass march in D.C. protesting the war.

What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.

March all you like...it doesn't matter. We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.

Re:Who voted for it?

[Red Flayer]

To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

That's a little confusing, since the meaning of "it" changes during your sentence. Obama voted to strike the immunity measure, McCain voted to keep the immunity measure, and Clinton was too busy kissing babies to vote.

Re:Pardon me?

[Shakrai]

just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations

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.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Welcome to the Police State. I know! I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today. Two of them searched my trunk... and I don't mean the hatch-back of my car, if you catch my drift. Don't even get me started about the "secret police" that searched my house this morning at 3:00am looking for Obama literature. Thank God I got rid of that! Oh, and I expect I'll get to meet you in the reeducation camp later this week. We all know that you are not allowed to post stuff like that in a police state. /sarc off

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Red Flayer]

It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.

Poppycock.

The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.

It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.

Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Black Parrot]

It doesn't get much clearer than that! What makes you think one part of the Constitution would stop them when they're voting to ignore another part?

Incorrect

[Raul654]

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.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[TripMaster Monkey]

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

You really need to stop trying to be snarky long enough to open your eyes. Here's some reading for you:

Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
Milton Mayer: An excerpt from "They Thought They Were Free"

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately?

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Captain Splendid]

You know, a police state is not a binary thing. Your post is correct in not conflating the US with, say, Iran, but you could at least admit that the direction the US is heading towards isn't exactly anti-police state either.

Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.

Only 26 Senators voted against this

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Senator Clinton was ... not present.

Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters

[Tanman]

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?

The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

So sue the government. Filing a lawsuit with the aim of outing information about a third party -- or indeed with any aim other than solely to impose just sanctions agains the defense -- is an abuse of the court system.

No it isn't an abuse. The lawsuits are just, because the telcos broke the law, and they should be punished for that.

I thought your complaint was that this wasn't addressing the true problem of the government breaking the law. I'm explaining how the lawsuits also address that. And just so you know, it is extremely common and not considered an abuse at all for an otherwise just and proper suit to have other strategic purposes, whether that be establishing a precedent, creating situations ripe for appeal and perhaps judicial review, to yes in fact exposing other crimes which leads to other lawsuits.

The problem with suing the government is that until we actually know for certain what they did any lawsuit isn't even going to get off the ground, its doubtful anyone would even have standing to do so until we know more. If you really think the government should be sued, the telco lawsuits are the best first step in doing so.

Re:Please do explain

[NewAndFresh]

Will the individual(s) who authorized these activities suffer if judgements are leveled against the company? No. It's not coming out of their paycheck.

How do you know this? Why wouldn't heads role? Especially if this ends up costing the shareholders millions or even billions. It would seem only natural that the individuals who made the important calls on this would get fired.