Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill

Posted by timothy on from the always-been-at-war-with-oceania dept.

zehnra writes "The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly." The New York Times has a story, as does the Associated Press (carried here by Yahoo!). Reader Guppy points out the roll call for the vote.

53 of 1,088 comments (clear)

  1. Remember in November. by base3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While they might not miss the relatively few votes of those of us who cared about the Republic, at least we'll be able to say we made the attempt.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    1. Re:Remember in November. by Selfbain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you better not say it too loudly because they'll be listening.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    2. Re:Remember in November. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For a while I thought Obama may have been worth voting for, but now its clear that he is just a Pol and not enough better than McCain to be worth voting for. I'm going to be limiting my choice to the Libertarian or Green candidates for President this fall.

    3. Re:Remember in November. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's axiomatic that any person who does what is necessary to become a viable Presidential candidate will not be worth voting for.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    4. Re:Remember in November. by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's only a two-party system because so few vote for other parties. Let him vote for whoever he actually wants to be president. If everyone did that we might no longer have a two-party system.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    5. Re:Remember in November. by Firehed · · Score: 5, Funny

      If everyone did that, we'd probably elect Oprah.

      Which, all things considered, I'm sure would be a big improvement.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    6. Re:Remember in November. by samkass · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it's a two-party system because of winner-takes-all state counting and the electoral college system. In such a system, any third party takes votes away from whichever of the primary parties most closely matches their goals. Thus, any libertarian or green party candidate running for President is only hurting their cause by making it less likely the representative that best supports their view wins. And since the only way to change it is in Congress and not the Executive branch, and they know this, you know they're doing it intentionally for publicity.

      So sure, fall for the publicity stunts if you want, but don't think they have your interests at heart.

      The way it's SUPPOSED to work is that the candidates are supposed to campaign hard, build supporters, negotiate concessions from the primary parties, then pledge their supporters to the candidate that agrees to support their interests. Thus even minorities are represented and the will of the people isn't subverted by a split vote.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    7. Re:Remember in November. by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm going to be limiting my choice to the Libertarian or Green candidates for President this fall.

      And that won't do a bit of good in a two-party system, unfortunately, and in fact it may just get McCain elected. I don't like the way it is, but it is what it is.

      Perhaps its time to change 'the way it is'. We did it once before.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    8. Re:Remember in November. by EvanED · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If everyone did that we might no longer have a two-party system.

      Even if this is true, I'm not convinced what we'd have is better though. We really need to fix the one-person-one-vote thing to have viable third parties.

      There's an interesting bit of economic theory which I think I remember from my game theory class. Imagine you have a beach, represented simply by a stretch of land. (i.e. it doesn't go all the way around a lake or something like that.) There are two competing snack stands that stake out the beach. Suppose they start 25% and 75% of the way across the beach, respectively. Assume a uniform (or at least symmetric about the midpoint) distribution of visitors on the beach, and that everyone goes to the nearest snack stand for food.

      What will happen is that each snack stand owner will keep nudging closer to the center of the beach in an effort to get more of the visitors. Eventually they will reach a stable position with both in the exact center.

      What's interesting about this is that if a third snack stand enters the picture, there is no stable solution. It will always be in someone's best interest to move.

      The parallels to elections I think is pretty clear, even if the model is extremely simple even for the beach world, let alone an election where you have rich political views that don't just fall on a single axis. (Even the thing you'll see with some online tests that rate you on, say, economic and social axes are really simple.)

      But I really think that if magically we were to arrive at the situation where there were three parties and a third of the country identified with each, after a few election cycles we'd be back where we are, at least for presidental and probably Senate elections. You need something more, like proportional representation (which doesn't work for the president and not really for the Senate) or a different vote counting system.

      It's possible that I'm wrong of course.

    9. Re:Remember in November. by Pollardito · · Score: 5, Funny

      does that mean we'd all get free cars?

    10. Re:Remember in November. by shipbrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. Obama just gave Bob Barr my vote.

  2. Some days... by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "He who trades essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

    I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.

    1. Re:Some days... by qbzzt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm thinking its time we start looking at the French Revolution for advice.

      Just remember, it ended with a Napoleon that was every bit as authoritarian as the old kings.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    2. Re:Some days... by bulled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Revolutions are only successful when the people fighting for them have little to nothing to lose. We know this in America, it is why the majority of people can survive even if in uncomfortable situations. As long as a majority are fed, housed, and clothed reasonably well you will not see revolution.

  3. MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS by cromar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does. They don't care. This nation needs a serious shakeup NOW.

    1. Re:MOTHER FUCKING TRAITORS by Kenshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wrote my senators. Fat lot of good that shit does.

      You probably forgot to put a few $100 bills in the envelopes.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  4. Damnit by martinw89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no words for how cheated I feel right now.

  5. I didn't know Obama was supporting this by Aggrajag · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Obama (D-IL), Yea"

    1. Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this by martinw89 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel so naive for thinking there was a candidate from one of the two major parties who actually stood for what's right.

    2. Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this by ozziegt · · Score: 5, Informative

      His explanation is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html b Still BS though.

    3. Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this by lgw · · Score: 5, Funny

      McCain abstained, which I guess makes him a "moderate" on the issue of screwing us over at every opportunity.

      Tired of choosing the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu in '08! No more years!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:I didn't know Obama was supporting this by akzeac · · Score: 5, Informative

      And here's Greenwald's trashing of that explanation.

  6. More On Immunity by rsmith-mac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From CNN

    Question: Will telecommunications firms be prosecuted for helping the intelligence community conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans?

    Benson: Although the Bush administration had wanted the telephone providers who cooperated with the surveillance program to receive outright retroactive immunity, this bill sets up a process for judicial review.

    A U.S. District Court judge hearing a pending case will determine whether the telecommunications provider received from the government letters which indicated the president had authorized the warrantless surveillance and that the program was considered lawful. If so, the lawsuit will be thrown out.

    Opponents argue this is a sham and say that the telecommunications are essentially being granted retroactive immunity because Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence (DNI), testified at a congressional hearing that all of the telephone carriers did receive government certifications.

    Some Republican supporters have called this process a "formality" and even Democratic proponents indicate it is likely that most, if not all, of the cases against the telephone companies will be dismissed.

    In short: They aren't outright granted immunity, but instead a hearing will be held where they will undoubtedly be granted immunity. Bloody Democrats, they never have a spine when they need one.

    PS: Hello to whatever TLA is currently monitoring this

  7. "Obama (D-IL), Yea" by Lost+Found · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Change we can believe in" No change at all...

    1. Re:"Obama (D-IL), Yea" by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, "Change, for the worse"

      That is still change.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  8. Deplorable by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Deplorable

    Why didn't Obama try to stop this? He could have spoken out and got the rest of the dems behind him. Instead he voted in favor of it. This is what his campaign said in October:

    "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

    And on Dec 17:

    Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.

    Oh sure, he voted for the amendments which attempted to remove or limit the immunity, but everyone already knew those would fail.

    This is from his most recent statement last week:

    The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.

    Another nail in the coffin for our constitution. This is a sad day. And to think that most of the senate voted on this WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE GIVING THE TELCOMS IMMUNITY FOR!!!.

    This stinks of a grand-scale coverup. There is still the possibility of suing the government, and perhaps striking this bill as unconsitutional. Let's hope we get to the bottom of this and put some people in jail.

  9. Ex Post Facto by chinakow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't this fly in the face of article 1 section 9 of the constitution? In paragraph 3 is states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." That seems rather straightforward to me and since this decriminalizes something after the fact it sounds like an Ex Post Facto law to me.

  10. The actual impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In between reading the legislation (which none of you will do) and reading only the summary, you might consider reading some analysis of this by someone who Is A Lawyer:

    Dean explains why current legislation regarding FISA would not hamper the next president's ability to push forward with criminal charges; cites the position regarding possible criminal charges that Obama had previously voiced; and describes the pardon dilemma with which President Bush may be faced if Obama continues to adhere to that position.

    Article here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

  11. Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor? by rtilghman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good faith?

    Companies capitulated in the face of jingoist rhetoric and executive branch shenanigans, essentially offering up constitutional protections with barely a peep.

    Whether they "thought they were doing the right thing" or not isn't the point... THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. It's illegal, it's a violation of the constitution, and they're lawyers KNEW THIS.

    Undoubtedly the Bush administration promised to cover their ass, and that's exactly what they've done.

    People scream about how unfair and overused civil suits are, but the truth is that in a capitalist society civil suits and monetary settlements are how you keep irresponsible corporations honest. Companies DO NOT CARE about you in any way shape or form, but they care about money, and the prospect of loosing large amounts of it can help to keep them honest.

    I can't believe Obama was stupid enough to vote for this tripe. At least McCain had the brains to avoid voting entirely. I favored Obama if only on the tax issue, but this has immediately made me question that decision.

    Lieberman I always knew you were a weasly little maggot coward, climb back into GWB's pants.

    Nice to see NY's senators did the right thing. Schumer and HC, I tip my cap to the correct call... you may have voted for your own reasons, but you voted right.

    Goddamn I hate my government. This and the Patriot Act... it might as well be 1938.

    -rt

  12. Re:Living under a rock? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that I doubt you (though I don't believe you, either), but the least you could do is provide citations. An admonishment to "wake up!" isn't terribly compelling if you don't provide proof that people are deluded in the first place.

  13. Donations from Obama to ACLU by daeg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was donating fairly regularly to Mr. Obama for his quest for Presidency. I urge those that were doing the same to move their future donations from Mr. Obama and the DNC to the ACLU, which is vowing to fight FISA and the immunity in court.

  14. Bloody Democrats? by stomv · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of the 49 Democrats in the Senate, the vote was 20-27-1 for FISA -- the Dems as a group voted against the bill, with Kennedy not present.

    Of the 2 Independents in the Senate, the vote was 1-1-0 for FISA -- Sanders voted against, Lieberman for.

    Of the 49 Republicans in the Senate, the vote was 47-0-2 for FISA -- the Republicans as a group voted unanimously for the bill, with McCain and Sessions not present.

    So it seems to me the beef ought not to be with the "Bloody Democrats" -- but rather with 100% of the Republican Senators, 50% of the Independent Senators, and roughly 40% of the Democratic Senators.

    --
    Support a few technologists in Washington.
  15. Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor? by EndingPop · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's all well and good, except this started in Feb 2001. For those without a calendar handy, that's BEFORE 9/11, and very shortly after Bush took office.

    That, and Quest didn't do it because they had competent lawyers who told them it was obviously illegal. AT&T and Verizon must have a decent legal department too, they just chose not to listen.

    --
    My Company - Red Cedar Technology
  16. Re:We had one. by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, 1994 was the biggest upheaval in Congress. The Democrats held majority power for 30+ years to that point, and looked to continue that hold... then suddenly this guy named Gingrich and a whole horde of opposition party candidates won a cascade of elections, blasting out a huge majority for themselves. The Senate fell to GOP rule just as quickly as the House did.

    2006 really was no upheaval because the GOP majority in Congress had slowly begun to wane ever since 1998 or so... it was a slow shift if nothing else.

    Incidentally, Barack Obama voted "Yea" on this bill. Not "Present", not "Npot voting", not "No"... he voted for it.

    I wonder what the DNC and its fan base is going to do when they find out en masse? I wonder how they'll spin it if McCain's campaign ever gets its head out of its collective ass and spreads word about it?

    Interesting, to say the least...

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  17. Re:So anyone who disagrees with you is a traitor? by Alyred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more concerned with the illegal, warrantless wiretapping they were asked to do (and complied with) BEFORE 9/11. Without immunity, most of these companies could be compelled to testify at hearings designed to bring to light what DID happen, and WHO was wiretapped, and be granted immunity when they were cooperative.

    Now, there's no reason for them to comply with anything. Bush wins again.

    The thing is, if they did nothing wrong, what have they got to hide? Right? Isn't that what they always tell us about the wiretapping? We don't even KNOW what they did that we are granting them immunity of -- but wow, are they spending billions to "convince" our legislators that there's "Nothing to see here, move along..."

    They seem pretty desperate to make sure that nothing they did will even come to light.

  18. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sure glad i'm european

    Yes, because regimes that violate civil liberties have never come to power in Europe.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  19. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by cicatrix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, Bush is a madman. I'm used to that by now, I no longer feel the rage so strongly.

    What really gets to me is that the damn Congress keeps rolling over and letting him get away with this shit. Sure, they huff and puff but they have no effing backbone to stand up to him when it comes time to vote. It's unacceptable, but still amazes me every. freaking. time.

    --

    I know more than you drink.
  20. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which is worse, McCain skipping, or Obama present and voting yea?

    Definitely Obama voting yea.

    Anybody paying attention for the last four years knows that McCain has become a puppet to the exact same people that Bush works for, but some of us actually had some hope that Obama had some political backbone.

    Yes, everybody who was telling me Obama was no different from any other politician may now gloat.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  21. Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed. The Republicans argue that FISA is critical to national security -- but the President says he'll veto it without telecom immunity attached. So what do the Democrats do? Pass it without immunity and dare him to veto it? No! They cave and give him most of what he wanted.

    This party is fucking worthless. Here's a novel idea: Pass it without immunity and when GWB vetoes it start running ads pointing out how the Republicans are placing us all in danger by refusing to compromise on a critical national security issue. If FISA is truly that important (I have my doubts but let's assume it is for the sake of the argument) then let's have an honest debate about it.

    No, instead they caved. On some level I can understand why Obama did it -- he doesn't want the Republicans beating him over the head with a national-security issue -- but WTF was Pelosi's reasoning? If you believe in party politics it's her job to take the heat off the nominee. Why the hell did she even let this come up?

    They are fucking worthless spineless jackasses. What is the goddamn point? Really, what's the fucking point anymore?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  22. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by bockelboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe this is why Congress has a below 10% approval rating? The lowest of any US government institution, EVER?

    Hell, that must mean that FEMA had a higher approval rating during Katrina than Congress has now.

  23. Enjoy the two party system by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's an illusion.

    It's not that they don't have the backbone to stand up to Bush. They have no wish to. Rare moments like these let you know who the real master is. Money. Money and the people/corporations who have large piles of it. Like gigantic telcos in this particular instance.

    The whole two party noise machine is just there to dull the wits of the masses and make them think they can change things.

    They can't.

    Remember how happy the Democrats were when the Congress became 51% Democratic? How's that working out so far? Fat lot of good it did, wouldn't you say?

    Face it - we're bought and paid for. You might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all fucking the good it does.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  24. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by Wapiti-eater · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Bush is a madman"....

    but did you notice who voted FOR this thing?

    FTFA - "Obama (D-IL), Yea"

    --
    Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
  25. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And people wonder where the stereotype of Democrats being spineless cunts comes from.

  26. Re:Disappointed Obama supporters raise your hand by stinerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Greenwald makes the point that this bill couldn't get passed when Republicans held the House and Senate.

    Apparently Bush needed a Democrat-controlled Congress to get his get-out-of-jail free card.

  27. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by atraintocry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're getting what they want though (some $90b in domestic spending). They didn't roll over, they very enthusiastically sold us out.

  28. It helps to understand what this is all about by grandpa-geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few years ago, when the whole warrantless wiretapping issue broke, Slashdot posted an article speculating on what was going on. The author looked at the public statements, developed a technical conjecture of what was probably happening, showed that the public statements correlated with the technical conjecture, and talked about the implications.

    IIRC, the article suggested that a system called Echelon, that had been deployed outside the US, had been deployed inside the US. Echelon was rumored to contain technology that sampled all voice conversations in a telephone system for certain words/phrases and decided to listen more closely to ones that triggered certain criteria.

    IIRC, the article then pointed out that if done within the US and thus requiring a warrant for each instance of listening, there were not enough personnel in the entire US judicial system to process all the warrants that would be needed.

    That is likely to be the context for what this is all about. It may well be a very difficult call. Also, the entire debate has taken place without this information publicly on the table, even on a basis of taking the speculation as an assumption by those debating the issue.

    If you think about the issue in these terms, the telecom immunity becomes somewhat of a sideshow and the imposition of judicial oversight on the criteria for further listening becomes the most critical aspect. An important purpose of the telecom immunity lawsuits was to find out what was happening. I think the article provides us an educated guess, and that the debate can become an informed one and not just an argument in the dark about principles without an understanding of the underlying technology.

  29. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by Askjeffro · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fact that Obama went back on his word to those of us who supported him for this reason is inexcusable. I am firmly voting for Barr instead of Obama now. Sure McCain would have voted yes, but that thats the point, he isn't a lier and backstabber to his supporters, at least on this issue.

  30. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by kat_skan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wanna know who didn't?

    Clinton (D-NY), Nay

  31. Obama lost me as a supporter - here's my letter by teshuvah · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm sure he won't read this, won't care, but nonetheless I wrote this:

    ----------------

    Mr. Obama,

    I am writing to you in regards to your vote on the telecom immunity/FISA bill today. I have never voted in my life, mostly because I've always felt that all politicians, especially presidential candidates, are all corrupted to the core. Bribes, AKA "campaign contributions", are what get laws passed in this country. I feel that we have become the United Corporations of America, in such that the country is completely run by corporate-bought politicians.

    Then you came along. Your message of change and hope, your rejection of lobbyists, and your sincerity caused me to believe in a candidate for the first time in my life. I was a big evangelizer of yours. I thought that maybe, just maybe this country had a chance to return to the ideals that our founding fathers believed in. You seemed to be our country's last hope.

    But then you voted in favor of the FISA/telecom immunity bill. For months you've been saying that you did not support it, but then after you won the primaries, you seemed to have changed your tune. I cannot fathom how the Barack Obama I supported in the primaries could vote for such a bill. The bill is beyond unconstitutional. Increasing the president's abilities to illegally spy on Americans is bad enough, but now the telecoms who illegally participated in the past get immunity. How is this change? How is this hope? How is this anything different than the past decades of corporate bought and paid for government? Removing even more of our civil liberties, and giving a "get out of jail free" card to those telecoms is not change. It's more of the same.

    I'm sure your position was switched because your top analysts told you that a vote against it would make you seem soft on terrorism. I had assumed you would do what you do best though - stand up and explain the situation from your perspective, and straighten everyone out. You did the same thing with the whole Jeremiah Wright ordeal. The media was having a frenzy, and you did something unprecedented - you talked to the media and the American people like a real person, not a politician. I had assumed you would stand your ground with the FISA bill, and address the American people as to why you voted that way. But instead, you fell into the trap that the current administration's fearmongering has laid.

    I'm very sorry that you voted for this bill. With one single vote of yours, you have now lost me as a voter. I will no longer endorse you to those I know, and will work to make sure people I know understand the implications of this illegal bill you voted for. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. The internet is swarming with angry, upset supporters of yours, who feel the same as I do. They too will be abstaining from voting this November.

    I haven't given up on you yet, and I'm hoping that you will do something publicly in the next few days to address this, and win my support back. I want to believe in hope and change, but frankly all I see now is another politician who managed to trick me. I hope you can prove me wrong.

    Sincerely,

    A Former Obama Supporter

  32. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by DinDaddy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I ran into a *lot* of people that were on the *far* side of weird every time I went there.

    Any beach in Europe will have 1/4th of the women going topless. And *nobody* *cares*

    Europeans don't like boobs, and you're calling us weird??

  33. Obama did vote to strip immunity by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He voted for all three amendments that would have stripped or at least delayed consideration of immunity. Granted, he should have voted against the final bill as unacceptable when those amendments did not pass, but he did at least vote for the amendments, the closest of which failed only 42-56. Had any Republicans except Arlen Specter bothered to stand up for the Constitution and rule of law, immunity might well have been removed.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  34. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by scooter.higher · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ron Paul did not vote "Yea" or "Nay," he just didn't vote:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

    --
    Ramen
  35. Re:Whew, your telcos are safe. by Valar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That /.'s consensus analysis of this bill is completely incorrect. The immunity portion of the bill doesn't change anything other than preventing a bunch of lawyers from getting rich, since the telecoms would have won any lawsuits anyway. I know that this is going to be wildly unpopular, but the truth is, if the government tells a business to do something, and tells the business that they have legal authorization to do it, and in fact threaten the company if they don't comply, the business is going to be off the hook in court. Who should be held responsible? The government agencies that did the bullying and misleading in the first place.

    So what does change? Going forward, there will be stiffer penalties for groups that violate FISA requirements, either knowingly or through a lack of due diligence.

    --

    ====
    Crudely Drawn Games