Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Republicans Renew Push for Telecom Immunity

Posted by Soulskill on from the wiretapping-a-dead-horse dept.

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."

10 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Republicans are a wierd set by pembo13 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Most claim to be highly religious, yet they take these actions which seem to be purely unethically motivated. I often wonder how they imagine themselves squaring accepting money from lobbyists, etc with God. "it was a lot of money" seems like a terrible excuse.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  2. Little more than a stunt, really by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The success and the payback the Democrats experienced in overturning this train-wreck of a bill experienced, they aren't in the mood to roll over any more. Even the telcos prefer the Democratic version which grants the companies the ability to present evidence in their own defence.

    And that is what scares the Bush administration most: transparency. They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics...

    1. Re:Little more than a stunt, really by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

      I forget who made that quote, but it's still valid.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

    2. Re:Little more than a stunt, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics... No, they're not. The Democratic Party has gone out of their way to self-destruct - again - and is incapable of putting up a unified front. The continued primary season guarantees that we'll be seeing McCain in office next year, since the Democrats have managed to completely split the party into people who'll vote for Obama but not Clinton and Clinton but not Obama. So whoever ultimately wins, the Democrats lose.

      To rework a phrase someone has already said, never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to self-destruct.
    3. Re:Little more than a stunt, really by tbannist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun.

      An Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket should motivate the Democratic voters for both front runners. Additionally, as long as the coverage focuses on the race between Clinton and Obama, the less it's focusing on that other guy who happens to be running for President and that's not good for him with undecided voters.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. Re:Not until they cut us our $150,000.00 checks.. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tell you what -- the officers of the company dictated that illegal policy, and considering the phone company's history and how long those guys have been around, they knew damned well what they were doing.

    Take ALL their assets. Bankrupt them, distribute the proceeds, THEN jail the sonzabitches.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  4. The Telcos are really caught in the middle... by sirwired · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the telcos here. Yes, they were in many cases paid to do the wiretapping, but I do not blame them in the least for assuming that the requests from the govt. agency were legal. It is not the telco's job to evaluate the constitutionality of requests from a government agency.

    OTOH, NOT granting them immunity is the only way we are ever going to get to the bottom of the wiretapping scandal, since suits against the govt. have been dismissed for lack of standing. (Lack of standing has been ruled, because the plaintiff's have not been allowed to collect or present evidence that the wiretapping took place at all. A stupid Catch-22.)

    SirWired

    1. Re:The Telcos are really caught in the middle... by nuzak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only reason they'd need immunity is if they are actually guilty but "somebody" thinks his orders are more important than the law.

      Or more likely, the money. AT&T found its principles rather quickly, once Uncle Sam's check bounced. This is the sort of thing that could come out in discovery, and this is what the telcos want immunity from.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  5. Re:Not until they cut us our $150,000.00 checks.. by Pendersempai · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?

    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.

  6. Re:Sure they can have immunity... by jthill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    too blinded ... to form an honest, open-minded opinion

    Prejudice is the mother of all traps, sure. Here's the one I fell into:

    In an essay by Ron Suskind, one of the President's advisors is quoted referring to

    the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence
    as a political advantage for the President.

    I know I'm not alone: when I saw the way he walks and the way he points, every poser alarm in my system started screaming bloody fool.

    As you say, right or wrong, snap judgments convince no one; but that's not the trap I fell into.

    The trap I fell into was that I didn't take the trouble to really eliminate the effects of confirmation bias. Laziness, really. I let my faith in the American system lull me, without acknowledging that I'm part of that system.

    The trap I fell into was to dismiss my gut reaction as implausibly extreme; to leave the job of responding to people with, as I thought, cooler heads and clearer vision. What I did was, I allowed a really important question to remain "open": I recognized my own prejudice and did not work to eliminate its effects.

    But it doesn't seem to me that confirmation bias has much chance of distorting these results. Take a gander at the last paragraph of this speech . Sit quiet and look at the premises, the reasoning, the implications.

    I've opened my mind, done my looking, and the conclusion I've reached is this: Bram Stoker's masterpiece is a metaphorical treatise on the desire for vengeance.

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.