Slashdot Mirror
House Republicans Renew Push for Telecom Immunity
CNet is running an update to the controversy over giving telecommunications giants such as AT&T immunity from lawsuits involving the assistance they gave the NSA for illegal wiretaps. Republican leaders are circulating a petition which would force a vote on the bill passed by the Senate but not by the House. Democrats are holding out for a version of the FISA bill which opens the telecoms to prosecution. President Bush still intends to veto any such document.
"At a wide-ranging House hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller again urged passage of a bill that includes immunity for phone companies, arguing that 'uncertainty' among the carriers 'affects our ability to get info as fast and as quickly as we would want.' He admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction."
On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition
Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry
"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.
Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry
This is the relevant passage:
...FBI Director Robert Mueller continued that push on Wednesday, but he wouldn't go so far as to say those "private partners" would stop installing requested wiretaps unless certain legal protection is granted.
To some extent, Mueller is stating the obvious: Federal law requires telephone and Internet companies to comply with lawful wiretap court orders or lawful certifications from the attorney general, with stiff penalties for noncompliance. But Mueller said in various ways that he was concerned that lack of retroactive liability protection would harm the government's "relationships" with telephone companies -- which seems to leave in doubt whether all of the administration's requests were legal.
The seemingly reluctant admission came during pointed questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Specter, the committee's ranking member, has proposed an amendment--which has so far been unsuccessful--to a controversial spy law update that would allow lawsuits alleging illegal spying by telephone companies to continue, except with government lawyers substituted in the companies' place.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said he disagreed with that approach, arguing it would provide a "disincentive" for communications companies to team up with federal terrorism investigations.
Then the following exchange ensued:
Specter: A disincentive, OK, but do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it is a disincentive...
Specter: But do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it would hamper our relationships, yes.... I do think it would hinder our relationships.
Specter: Disincentive, hamper, hinder, but I don't hear you say it would stop....
Mueller: I'm not going to say it's going to stop, but I do believe delay is detrimental to the safety of the country. Delay and lack of clarity, lack of simplicity guiding our relationships inhibits our ability to get the information we need on a daily basis.
...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Qwest said "No".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html
In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.
The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.
You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded. That's why companies incorporate. You have to sue the company itself as it is its own entity.Now, if you can find a telco that allowed wire taps and is a sole proprietorship, then have at it! Good luck in finding one of those.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You are absolutely incorrect. This is almost a textbook example of an ad hominem argument. The claim of the argument is that, because the proponent of a position is supposedly a "hate filled bigot," the position is therefore invalid.
To use Wikipedia's example:
This is precisely the content of the argument I was responding to. Please, if you are going to attempt to correct somebody on a point like this, in the future do try to do better than, "it's more like a red herring."Wikipedia again, although I have some textbooks on the subject if you'd prefer I use a more formal resource. Of important note that ad hominem and red herring are not mutually exclusive, and even suggest one another often as not.
To wit, the person to whom I replied both dismissed the grandparent's argument on the bases of a personal characterization (ad hominem) and attempted to divert the argument to one about people being "hate filled bigots" about bush (red herring). I stand by my claim of ad hominem, and suggest you find a more useful and valid criticism if you dislike my point.
P.S. I studied philosophy with a concentration in formal logic, why I claim as an explanation for my preference for formal logical analysis of arguments. And yourself?