Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

Posted by kdawson on from the not-even-a-wrist-slap dept.

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.

10 of 623 comments (clear)

  1. Stunned by cmefford · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:Stunned by Gravatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Stunned by Xaositecte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. According to the article by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  3. Re:protest? chance of stopping this? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  4. Re:And the beat goes on. by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  5. Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Incorrect by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters by Tanman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?