Slashdot Mirror


Retroactive Telco Immunity Opponents Buying TV Ad

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both, many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason. And now some of them are trying to do something about it — they're buying an advertisement on cable TV. While it's not entirely clear what good, if any, this will do given that it's too late, at least it's cheap to participate — they're looking for $6 donations. The ideas is that, if more grass-roots groups do this kind of thing, their 'representatives' won't be able to afford to blow them off as easily."

65 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. A TV ad? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    A TV ad?
    Blarney: mad.
    One does just fine
    With simple sign.
    Burma Shave

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:A TV ad? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something more on topic:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

      Rooms designed for the interception of all telecom traffic,
      including net activity, and not just for ppl on terror watch
      list but all US citizens.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  2. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if I wouldn't end up on a spamlist for every new tree-hugging wackjob cause that comes down the pike.

    Because being against telco immunity means your a tree-hugger? WTF?

  3. Direct link, because editors are lazy by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 4, Informative

    The link is to a Wired blog. The direct link is http://getfisaright.net/promote. And they're not asking for donations of $6, they're asking people to pay to run the ad - which might be $6, or could be a lot more, depending on the market and time of day. I think it would be a lot more efficient if they set up a fund to accept donations and ran the campaign from there.

    Apparently they know how to get FISA right, but not how to get their advertising campaign right.

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    1. Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And too bad the ad is incredibly forgettable and badly done. Most people will not even pay attention to it.

      It's a waste of time to put that on the air, the money is better spent elsewhere... Like paying to get a real in your face ad made, they need to not hold any punches, they need to be blunt.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe they do. For one, this gives you a lot more "connection" to the campaign if you can point to the screen and say "that is my ad" instead of "I made a small donation to the people who run the fund that bought this ad".

      Two, politically, it's also an interesting move, because it puts actual people behind the ad campaign instead of some anonymous organisation. We will know when we see the PR in the mainstream press. If they play their cards right, the mainstream media might well write "thousands of people bought ads to protest the FISA act" or something like that. Which, of course, is a lot more headlines material than "some protest organisation protests FISA, as they did before".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a good point - but what wasn't mentioned in the TFS was that the cost of the ads (as mentioned in the Wired blog) goes up to almost $2000. How many people are going to pay that kind of money to get this ad on the air? And that was for a spot on CNN (between 6PM and midnight - how much you want to be it gets shown closer to midnight?), not during American Idle* or some other popular show - which would probably cost much more, as well as being much more effective.

      Maybe they could go both routes - have a link to "go here to get the ad played yourself" and a link to "go here to contribute to our fund to play the ad during popular primetime shows"?

      * - No, I didn't misspell it. I meant it that way.

      --
      Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  4. What's the big deal? by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 3, Funny
    The only folks who are going to sue are those American hating liberals that are against freedom! Those stupid freedom hating liberals are always hiding behind the Bill of Rights and always trying to undermine our fight for freedom against the Terrorists and Muslims. Why, if you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

    These liberals are just using this as an excuse to keep the loophole in the law so that they can accuse the Government of spying (yet another conspiracy theory!) and get rich! That's why all of the liberal leaning states are the wealthiest in the country - they sue innocent corporations! That's why the Trial Lawyers support the Liberal Democrats! They're trying to destroy our Republic, Capitalism, and the American way!

    Then, they have the stupidity to try to ban our guns! They use the "Civil Liberties" as a screen but when it comes to the freedom to bare arms, do they fight for that? Nooooooo! We should put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Then those Liberals will fight for it!

    Sincerely,

    Average American who is educated by TV and Radio.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

      the freedom to bare arms

      Depending on what the person looks like, I think they should have the right to bare a lot more than their arms. ;-)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:What's the big deal? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never has a nick matched a post so well.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  5. Bad Ad by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've watched the Ad referenced in TFA, and frankly it's not very good. The 'pay to get your political ad on tv' is also not some kind of new initiative driven by the getFISAright crew, either. They've just bought into a political ad networking scheme set up at SaysMe.TV

    Frankly it's hard to call this news in any sense, when it can just as easily be summarised as 'Another bad home-made political advert added to a pay-to-play-on-TV youtube.'

    These are important issues folks, but let's not wet our pants every time someone mentions wiretapping.

  6. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by zwei2stein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, you will end up on "Affiliates with wabcjok treehuggers, not patriotic, possible terrorist" list that government has anyway. Plus you will be on "funds anti-patriotic organizations" list. That's one hell of skeleton in your closet even if that ad does not get broadcasted (Will some TV station have balls to accept this deal? Most likely it will get stopped on executive level).

    People tried something like this with Samizdat in Communist times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 It didn't end well for most of them.

    --
    -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
  7. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I AM against telco immunity. I'm against domestic wiretapping. I'm against an administration that blatantly disregards the Constitution and regards everything they do as legal, simply because they are doing it. However, hard experience has taught me that contributing to ANY cause gets me on mailing lists for "similar" causes - whether I want to be or not.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  8. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by rpillala · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been donating regularly to this cause (ActBlue) and have not had this experience, at least with this PAC. I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner. Not that it wouldn't happen these days, I'm just saying it hasn't been my experience.

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  9. HTML Tags. by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 2

    Never has a nick matched a post so well.

    I couldn't find the HTML tags for humor and satire.

  10. Throw the bums out. All of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and then throw them out again.

    Never vote for an incumbant again, at least
    for another 3 election cycles.

    I don't care, throw them out. You think you
    have a 'good guy' in congress? You're wrong.
    Throw them out.

    All of them. /that/ is the fix for so called special interest lobbies. Take away their power.

    That is the only fix.

    Better that the government never get anything
    else done.

    1. Re:Throw the bums out. All of them by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real fix is to separate politicians from money. Give them and their family a "free ride for life" if that's what it takes and we'll STILL save money. Prevent them from ever being a corporate leader and stop the revolving doors from spinning. Prevent them from accepting ANY money at all and they cannot be bribed as easily. Then they can focus on voting their conscience and ideals, whatever they may be, because they will be "above" money.

      Doing something like that will find the welfare of the nation as a whole will be important and not just the oil lobby, the cigarette lobby, the energy lobby, the cheap foreign labor lobby and all those other lobbies.

    2. Re:Throw the bums out. All of them by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real fix is to liberate politicians from the need to bow to corporations to sponsor their elections, simple as that. Even if you give the politician a "free ride" once he's in, how did he get in if he didn't accept brib... I mean, campaign contributions from companies?

      I prefer our model. Our politicians and parties get tax money for their campaign. That's right, you heard me, tax money. You get at least 2% of your voters to vote for you and you're eligible for campaign money. WE pay our politicians to lie to us. But at least WE buy them. Not some company. And to some degree, taking money from companies is outright illegal here. Unfortunately only to some degree... A proposal to force politicians to put every single cent they get paid on the table was shot down by some parties, which are (surprise, surprise...) also the parties closely associated with big business.

      Personally, I see my politicians as my employees. Well, mine and that of the rest of the people living here. I have to announce to my employer every job I want to take, and I think, so should my employees. I just want to make sure that no "competition clause" may be applicable...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I AM against telco immunity. I'm against domestic wiretapping. I'm against an administration that blatantly disregards the Constitution and regards everything they do as legal, simply because they are doing it. However, hard experience has taught me that contributing to ANY cause gets me on mailing lists for "similar" causes - whether I want to be or not.

    I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing.

    In the same way, although they are aware that they bother, irritate, or even outrage former givers by sending out reminder after reminder about all the giving opportunities available to previous donaters, they know that they will receive more money, overall, by doing this.

    Unfortunately, some gut part of me reacts objectionably to this, and I cannot in good conscience send money their way.

  12. Congress Writes the Laws... by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in...

    The 110th Congress Composition: 282 Democrats - 274 Republicans - 2 Independents. So please tell me how Republicans created this mess?

    1. Re:Congress Writes the Laws... by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aside from the fact that it was a republican administration that initiated the illegal program, four senior republican lawmakers who attempted to expand it with the "Terrorist Surveillance Act (2006)" and a senior republican (Specter R-PA) who introduced immunity, I can completely see how it wasn't the republicans who created the wiretapping and immunity mess...

    2. Re:Congress Writes the Laws... by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the democrats are certainly not blameless (especially Pelosi and Reed) you might notice that only one republican congress person (Johnson R-IL) and not a single republican senator voted against this bill.

    3. Re:Congress Writes the Laws... by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention the fact that the program was divulged in 2005, and was active well before that, and that the current congress wasn't seated until January, 2007...

    4. Re:Congress Writes the Laws... by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show us the percentage of republicans who voted for and against and the percentage of democrats, and point out the democrats who are only democrat in name, like Pelosi.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    5. Re:Congress Writes the Laws... by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't matter. It still required Democrats to vote for it to pass, which is exactly what happened. Thus, it isn't a problem created by Republicans, but by Congress, which consists of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

    6. Re:Congress Writes the Laws... by jackbird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Usually law enforcement grants a person or entity immunity in order to get them to name names and enable prosecution of folks higher up the food chain. Granting unconditional immunity is nothing more than a cover-up.

  13. Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA by LMacG · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure where you got your list from, but I noticed it leaves off Webb (D-VA), and further searching reveals it doesn't seem to match up with the Senate's own records at all.

    --
    Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
  14. Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not the right list. The one you want is here.

  15. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Informative

    What part of "pay by credit card" didn't you get?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  16. I'm still pissed too. I've left the D party. by maynard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm done with party politics. The leadership of both political parties have shown that they are willing to trade the legal principals of our founding fathers for short-term political gain. The parties have acted to retain their own power and authority at the expense of our Bill of Rights. This is simply unacceptable.

    But the solution cannot be found in insular political organization. That is, organized liberals cannot fix this. Nor can organized conservatives. The only solution here is for the population of liberals and conservatives to realize they have a greater sense of purpose by opposing the GOP/DNC lock on national politics. Political enemies must become friends in order to oust the real enemy of freedom. And they have a lock on all the power the state can muster.

    I sadly believe that our republic has already fallen, and the "great experiment" is now over.

  17. too high a price ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is the price of getting put on a mailing list too high to pay for a bit more freedom ?

  18. Accuracy by vvaduva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason." 1. I don't think they are spying "for no reason" 2. They are intercepting calls made to/from a foreign country. If you want sympathy for the cause, make sure you describe the issue accurately.

  19. The gentleman doth protest too much by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason.

    It is neither "spying on American citizens" nor "for no reason." It's pathetic that you've got to make it sound like something more sinister than it is in order to try and scare people to your side of the fence on the issue. If Microsoft had written that article summary, people would be screaming "FUD!"

    The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant. Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are aware are you not that the risk of an American being killed by a terrorist is just about the lowest of all the things likely to kill one right ? Cars kill the most, ciggarettes and burger king are pretty high on the list, PLANE CRASHES are higher than terrorists ... heck SUICIDE is a higher risk.

      You American's kill more of each other every year than the terrorists can pull of combined ! You kill yourselves more often than they have managed to do !

      If I were you, I would stop worrying about a few people whom you think is fighting a religious war (they are not, suicide missions occur in all wars and all religions, you yourselves send your spies out on missions with arsenic pills in their pockets, the Japanese fought you with suicide pilots - and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it - the 'muslim extremisms' thing is a great big lie which THEY love to tell as much as your leaders love to repeat it) and worry a little more about why it seems that you cannot stop blowing peoples brains out (note: I said nothing about owning guns, I'm in FAVOUR of gun-ownership, for a reasonable value of 'gun' at least - I am talking about what you DO with them, I'm sure if we banned guns you would just end up killing each other with knives so it's probably a different problem altogether).

      Short version: Terrorist won't do anything to you. Other American's are about 500 times more likely to kill you... or maybe that is WHY you are happy to defend the government listening on your neighbours' phone calls without so much as a judicial review ? It's just easier to pretend you fear terrorists than admit you fear the guy next door ? Especially if he has a darker skin than yours ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant.

      The "conversations originating overseas" were illegal to monitor too! If they're going to break the fucking law to do that, then nothing stops them from doing exactly the same to Grandma and little Jimmy.

      You're essentially saying, "they broke the law, but that's okay because they wouldn't break the law" which is just fucking stupid.

      Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest

      No, it shouldn't! Statistically, I'm as likely to be struck by lightning as I am to be killed by a terrorist. And I'm vastly more likely to die in a car wreck, or by slipping in the shower, or doing any number of other things that everybody does every day without particularly worrying about it. So no, this hysterical, cowardly obsession with the terrorist boogeymen should not be in everybody's fucking interest!

      I'm more scared of the Bush administration than I am of the terrorists. By a wide margin.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by ravnous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If some government official came up to me and told me they were investigating a suspected terrorist and they needed such and such help from me, I'd assume it was a legit request and comply. I'd also assume that the government was the one who would assume the consequences if the request was not valid and I did something I wasn't supposed to do. If it was Joe Blow coming to me and asking me to allow him to wiretap someone, that's different. A government official comes to your door with credentials of authority. Besides, there was no profit in this for these telcos. They didn't gain anything financially by allowing these wiretaps. In fact, they had to pay their employees to work with whoever was asking for these wiretaps when they could have been doing something to help their company's bottom line instead. To me, this smacks of typical left-wing "All corporations are evil, let's get 'em" mantra.

      --
      When does this happen in the movie?
    4. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      suicide missions occur in all wars and all religions, you yourselves send your spies out on missions with arsenic pills in their pockets, the Japanese fought you with suicide pilots - and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it

      There's a bit of a difference between the operative who takes a suicide pill with him to avoid capture and the kamikaze pilot or suicide bomber that sets out knowing he will die. I don't think you'll find many examples in Western Civilization of purposeful suicide missions. Heck, one of our operatives who was shot down during the Cold War declined to take his suicide pill.

      and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it

      Do you know what kamikaze translates as? It literally means "god wind" (though commonly translated as "divine wind"). The kamikaze pilots were heavily influenced by both their Shinto beliefs and cultural influences. I don't think you can dismiss the influence of religion as easily as you would like to in this instance.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

      Or, y'know, those of us who believe in due process. We don't throw our principles out when dealing with our enemies... otherwise they mean nothing.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    6. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any conversation with anyone outside the US can be intercepted, not just the ones that originate overseas or are from known or suspected terrorist organizations. If Grandma is in London, England, or even London, Ontario, the conversation can now be legally listened to. Also, the FISA courts were set up as a rubber stamp. IIRC, there's a special room at the NSA where a federal judge does nothing but grant warrants for FISA wiretaps. The whole process takes about five minutes, and the warrant was retroactive for a few days so that nothing important would be missed. The current administration felt that this was too restrictive, so they just stopped following the law.

      With disposable phones so prevalent now, how do you know which call to listen in on? This is why the gov't can't get a warrant. If you think about how it works, you will understand. Take this hypothetical:

      A call comes in from Pakistan from an unknown number. It's a disposable cell phone in the northern "tribal" region to a disposable phone in Washington DC. Another call comes in from London to the same number. Another call comes in from Iran to that number. How do you know if it's tap-worthy? There's no other option but to listen in. You listen in and find out that it's just someone talking with relatives scattered all over the globe because grandma just died. No threat, so you stop listening. Do you get a warrant now because you listened in? There are thousands of calls that come in like this every single day. Most of which are harmless. Do you get a warrant for each and every one?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need a warrant to tap a foreign phone. The forth does not apply overseas.

      That has nothing to do with this. The argument over the warrantless wiretapping involves proponents in the administration who argue that FISA requirements were superseded by the resolutions passed in response to the 9/11 attacks. They're basically arguing that they're not obligated to get warrants when they believe that one end of the communication is a member of Al Quaeda or an individual supporting Al Quaeda in some way.

      There is no legitimate debate from any involved party as to whether or not, prior to the AUMF resolution, that the wiretapping in question would have required FISC authorization. The argument being made is that the AUMF resolution implicitly de-authorized the warrant requirements of FISA. This is a highly dubious legal interpretation, and one which not all members of even the Bush administration were willing to stand behind. Furthermore, if it's not extralegal, why keep it secret, why does anyone need telco immunity, and why not just divulge the details of the case and allow it to be litigated?

      It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the program was legal until it was made explicitly so after the fact. There have already been very mixed results in litigating various administration behaviors in relation to the AUMF, so whether or not they could successfully press this argument is very much up in the air.

      Sorry if you hold "national security" to such a low regard. Do you leave your doors unlocked when you go to bed?

      I asked for specific citations regarding the manner in which "national security" was achieved or reasonably pursued in relation to warrantless wiretapping. You have provided strawmen about my house and my personal feelings.

      Furthermore, I do not hold national security in "such a low regard". I asked for evidence that national security objectives were achieved rather than empty statements that it was being pursued in some non-specific way.

      It seems to me that actually pursuing evidence of progress on national security matters would be holding the concept in much higher regard than simply accepting arbitrary claims without any measurable evidence of success.

      Congress has made it perfectly clear that such wiretapping is NOT illegal.

      First of all, my commentary is not immature, it is simply opinionated. I'm under no obligation to be even-handed here, and you shouldn't assume that I'm going to be. I oppose excessive government powers of any stripe, and if secretly wiretapping citizens and refusing to allow any meaningful oversight isn't an excessive power, I don't know what is.

      Second of all, Congress only made it explicitly legal after it was discovered. Whether or not it was legal before that is highly debatable, and whether or not it's legal now is still not entirely certain. Congress has attempted to bail out illegal administration practices before and had their laws slapped down by the courts on Constitutional grounds. One of the major arguments against this practice is that it's a Constitutional violation.

      If it bothers you, however, I could call it unethical wiretapping. That's a clear matter of opinion.

      And, as a footnote to all this, we haven't even touched on one crucial component of the argument: what was wrong with the existing FISA provisions anyway?

    8. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      ...and just as statistically likely to be the subject of an illegal wiretap.

      Only if the government does fewer than about 475 illegal wiretaps per year, on average. I think it's reasonable to guess that the number is larger than that -- but more importantly, we can't know the real number because the damn thing's a secret, which itself is part of the problem!

      Rather, it's the principle of the thing. You've got two sides, both sticking to their principles, to the extreme.

      Yes and no. I agree that it's about principle, but it's only one side -- the side against illegal wiretapping, i.e., following the fucking law -- that has them.

      Granted, I can understand how a government acting outside the law is problematic

      WTF?! They didn't "act outside" the law, they BROKE the law! They are criminals. They deserve to be in prison. Why? Because that's where we send criminals that have broken the law! Q-E-fucking-D!

      The rule of law is the most important thing in the entirety of our social and political system! If the government is free to ignore the law, then the law no longer exists. If the law no longer exists, then we have a dictatorship rather than a democracy. The fucking American Revolution was fought over less!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are aware are you not that the risk of an American being killed by a terrorist is just about the lowest of all the things likely to kill one right ?

      Have you stopped to consider this might be the logical outcome of a pro-active intelligence gathering policy just like the one you're currently attacking? The argument you are making is analogous to saying "I don't know why I bother securing my servers anymore since they never get rooted!"

      As I've stated elsewhere in other posts, I'm in the U.S. Marine Corps. I've been in Iraq. I'm willing to bet you haven't. I'm also in the intel branch. You have no idea how many bad guy ops are stopped long before a bomb goes off. And you never, ever hear about it because the terrorists didn't pull off their objective. So you can smugly sit there at your keyboard feeling all safe and happy, knowing that you're far more likely to die from Burger King cholesterol than from a terrorist plot. You can do that because people you despise and denigrate are using methods you abhor to protect you from your naivete. You're welcome.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    10. Re:The gentleman doth protest too much by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RESOLVE your differences and come to peaceful agreements.

      Pray tell, how does one come to a "peaceful agreement" with a group that has, as a stated purpose of their charter, a mission to either convert, enslave, or murder anyone who does not follow their faith? What comfortable middle ground would you be willing to accept, the murder of only half of us infidels?

      Peaceful agreements require both sides to be willing to compromise. The Islamists are, by their own statements, unwilling to compromise on anything at all. That alone makes negotiations predestined to fail, yet you make it seem like we're the ones who are failing to live up to your lofty standards.

      And if you think the U.S. isn't at least indirectly related to the current and/or former security of South Africa, you're more naive than I originally took you for. Communist rebels funded by the Soviets were actively seeking to topple the S.A. government and replace it with your typical Africa thug-style dictatorship reporting to Moscow. The U.S. and, to a larger extent, all of NATO worked directly and indirectly against that. So, I'll again say "you're welcome" even though you're too proud and too full of yourself to say "thank you."

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  20. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner.

    Not "ironic", just hypocritical.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  21. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well I'm probably in the minority here. I have hugged a tree. I like trees. They don't complain, they look pretty, and they provide me with oxygen. And unlike with "higher" primates you can't get AIDS or any other social disease from hugging a tree. Trees rock, primates are mainly assholes.

  22. Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. by intx13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Left wing leaders don't care about the spying. They just want another set of excuses to try and destroy the American economy even more than all their environmental regulation already has.

    Ah yes, because all those career Democrat politicians are spending their lives working for a government that they are secretly trying to destroy via an economic collapse. Sounds reasonable to me! Seriously, drop the conspiracy theories and realize that everybody thinks they're doing the Right Thing. The problem is that, like practically anybody who has nothing else to do but talk about politics all day, they're idiots and have no idea what they're doing. But there's no vast left-wing conspiracy to take down the American economy.

  23. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wacko-wack... I looked up "primate" in WordWeb after I posted:

    Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet

    I don't have good eyesight nor flexible hands and feet so it seems that I am not a primate. Thank goodness for that!

  24. Re:I'm not paying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not about punishing TelCos. It's about the Discovery Phase of such a trial. In the discovery phase we'd find out about who they tapped and what they listened to. That's important because knowing this admin, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect it possible that they might be lying when they said "we only tapped the phones of folks who spoke to overseas terror suspects."

    Maybe. Just MAYBE, they listened to a few more people who weren't speaking to terror suspects. Maybe they even listened to purely domestic calls. Honestly the actions of this admin sound a heck of a lot like what Nixon was forced to resign over.

    With the immunity in this bill, any lawsuit against TelCos is thrown out even beofre the discovery phase.

  25. Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thank you for that! Here's the list of both Democrats AND Republicans who voted for or against it, from the link you provided. I don't know where the GP got off just listing Democrats, both mainstream parties are firmly pro-corporation and anti-people.

    It looks like my Senators (bolded) cancelled each other out. The Republican candidate for President didn't even bother to show up for the vote.

    Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
    Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
    Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
    Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
    Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea
    Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay

    Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.4) so you must make your coherent comment incoherent.

    Sorry guys, slashdot won't allow lists.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  26. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by LoofWaffle · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm with you on this one. I especially like the knotty pines.

    --
    You know, Custer had a plan.
  27. Correction by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason

    many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no good reason

    Their was a reason for the spying. You may think it was good, most Slashdot members appear to believe that it was not a good reason, but a reason was given (after the fact). That reason being, they were spying on international calls believed to be involved in terrorism.

    I'm not defending the ISP's or the Government, but the original post is misleading IMO.

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Correction by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason

      many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no good reason

      Their was a reason for the spying. You may think it was good, most Slashdot members appear to believe that it was not a good reason, but a reason was given (after the fact). That reason being, they were spying on international calls believed to be involved in terrorism.

      I'm not defending the ISP's or the Government, but the original post is misleading IMO.

      I agree completely. I can think of 3000+ good reasons. Actually, that's not true because those 3000+ are dead and gone.

      I can think of 300,000,000 reasons.

      Don't get me wrong, there are valid complaints against the bill, but when you start out saying obvious lies like, "for no reason", you lose all credibility.

      Besides, this seems like a money grab to me. They are trying to raise money to bribe...er... lobby congress people. If the telecom bill were THAT unpopular, these asshats in congress would be voted out, as that would be the "will of the people". Since they won't be, it's safe to assume that the American public either supports the telecom bill or simply doesn't care enough to make it a voting issue. So it seems to me that this group is trying to raise money to usurp the will of "We The People" in the name of the Constitution. Something is not right there.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  28. A free alternative defense: by edalytical · · Score: 4, Funny

    Consul corporate security clones There Cohiba digicash infowar USDOJ CDMA sniper Qaddafi supercomputer are INSCOM Aldergrove Legion of Doom BRLO other Rand Corporation ASIO cracking Downing options Street high security Abbas lock picking namely Albright Europol Consul Rumsfeld NATO bluebird false George W. Bush nitrate analyzer South Africa mindwar Armani Skipjack CISU positives world domination LABLINK Kh-11 or secure try Defcon!@#d%d&*(";dd;,[NO CARRIER

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
  29. Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, I'll bite.

    the legislative issue on wiretapping was only whether or not a bunch of greedy lawyers want another set of deep pockets to go plundering

    When Evil-X left me and my two teenaged daughters for another man (have you any idea what that did to the kids?) I was damned glad to have one of the "greedy lawyers" you hate so much. Likewise when I was forced into bankrupcy because the bitch had run my finances into the ground, I was damned glad I had a "greedy lawyer".

    When I got a detached retina this year I was damned glad I had a "greedy surgeon", who charged a lot more than the lawyers. You, sir, have a jealousy problem. And no, IANAL. I do databases at work for a whole lot less maney than the doctors and lawyers I have been GLAD to pay.

    Left wing leaders don't care about the spying. They just want another set of excuses to try and destroy the American economy

    Odd, when the Republicans were in power everybody I knew was hurting financially, but then again I don't know many rich people.

    even more than all their environmental regulation already has

    I'm 56. When I was a kid, few had air conditionaing in their cars. But even when it was ninety five degrees farenheight you rolled the windows up driving through Sauget where Monsanto had their plant. Anybody who curses Nixon for signing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is either a polluter or an idiot, or too young to remember what it was like before environmental regulation.

    Now I guess I need to go to the Biters Anonymous meetings again, because IHBT.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  30. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 4, Informative

    God I hate these arguements about the definition of ironic... Irony is defined by a situation in which the intention (or the expected results) of an action and the action's result are different. So, as applied to the above statement:

    Situation: Pro-privacy group receives thousands of e-mails.

    The intention: Pro-privacy group works for the privacy of the users of these e-mail addresses

    Apparent result: E-mails are sold to a commercial entity, having the pro-privacy group give up the privacy of its members.

    This is the definition of irony. In fact, most hypocritical actions are, in fact, ironic.

  31. Barr anyone? by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From your "CHANGE MY ASS" comment, I take it you're not planning to vote for Barack Obama for President this November. If you are eligible to vote in the United States, do you prefer John McCain or Bob Barr?

  32. Re:I'm not paying. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In general going against the Immunity is saying I hate big companies because they have more money then I do.

    Bullshit. It's saying that you support upholding of the law. No one gets to break the law just because someone says it's ok.

    Having them fined or jailed will do nothing positive.

    No more or less positive than punishing anyone else who breaks the law. They broke the law, so let them be punished.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  33. 4th Amendment? 1st Amendment! by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Much ado is made about the violation of the 4th amendment embodied in the passage of the FISA bill. While I find that to be more than sufficient to find the passage of that bill to be a violation of the oath to defend The Constitution, I believe the violation of the 1st is more troubling.

    The 1st Amendment documents fact that our right to petition the government for redress of grievances cannot be infringed. Bringing a civil suit is exactly what it is talking about. The judicial is the branch of government that has the authority to grant redress. It is the sole prerogative of the judicial to decide whether a law has been infringed. Congress can change the laws going forward, but once a petition for redress reaches the court, it is out of the hands of the legislative.

    While I completely agree that the infringement of the 4th in the name of the war on terror is wrong, it is not a clear attempt to usurp the sovereign power of the American people to control the powers of government. The violation of the 1st amendment's right to petition for redress is the most egregious portion of the FISA bill.

    As an aside; one can also see the attempted shift in the balance of power with the newly merged PRO-IP/PIRATE acts. The way it has worked (in all cases, as far as I know), is that government cases against the people were criminal, and required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People's cases against the government or agents of government are civil, requiring preponderance of evidence. Some are holding hope for the possibility of criminal action, but even so, with the FISA bill, we lost the right to preponderance of evidence. With PRO-IP/PIRATE, the government is taking preponderance in place of beyond reasonable doubt. It is extremely telling and disturbing to me that the government is simultaneously saying that the people cannot be trusted with preponderance, and that the government need not be limited to beyond reasonable doubt.

  34. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by mrops · · Score: 2, Informative

    What has happened to US, reminds me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin:
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  35. Responsibilities by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i agree the bailing out of the banks and all the crap they are pull

    The problem is one of moral hazard and responsibilities of both political parties. Republicans are supposed to be the bulwark against the excesses of Washington and they've honestly been terrible.

    The expansion of the budget deficit under Bush, and I am a Republican, has been utterly foolish and wasteful. The bottom line is, Democrats are the ones that are supposed to be the ones that want to tax and spend and, even if sometimes it is needed, they are the ones that should do that.

    But, the real problem is that, if you've got the Feds bailing out a bunch of banks - and the sweetheart deal for Bear Sterns so that rich people could keep some of their stock, was utterly wrong. If the Fed can come up with 200 billion to bail out rich people, its basic fairness that advocates for the left wing and the poor might ask , geez, maybe they should be able to get some money to bail them out too. So, we need to have some leadership in Washington that is capable of saying no, and Bush just isn't doing the job.

    I almost welcome an Obama Presidency so that those Republicans in the Congress that had the courage to vote against this bailout will be the Republicans we rebuild our party around, and in doing so, I should hope we focus on the positive messages of free enterprise, individual thrift and responsibility, or at least an acceptance of one's own failures, and less on ridiculous and wrong headed crap like picking on gays and supposed national security.

    --
    This is my sig.
  36. Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ah yes, because all those career Democrat politicians are spending their lives working for a government..... But there's no vast left-wing conspiracy to take down the American economy.

    Nationalize everything, and therefor, the government has a lot more power. I don't see what the Dems are doing as maliciously minded. I perfectly concede that they genuinely believe that everything would be better if they ran everything. It's just that, humans have tried socialism over and over again and it simply hasn't worked. You need to have private property and businesses for the economy to work. Everyone knows this. Even Cuba is now gradually increasing private property rights for individual farmers in a bid to increase its own production.

    Of all great ironies, though, is that, if we step forward 100 years, Reagan and Clinton will be seen as more alike than apart, and similarly, Bush and Obama will both represent a more activist and centralized government.

    --
    This is my sig.
  37. Good Charities and Bad Charities by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Informative

    "I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing."

    I understand where you're coming from, since I give a good bit to charities myself... however, don't write all charities off because of the smarmy, professional fund raisers that some employ. A good way to gauge good charities is with Charity Navigator, which rates charities on a variety of topics, including fundraising and expenses. If a charity is spending too much on fundraising and administration, it's all laid out for you to see. Most also have their mailing list and privacy policies available there. Before I give to any cause now, I check Charity Navigator first.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  38. Re:I wouldn't mind doing this by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oblig. xkcd.com/398/

    --
    Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  39. Re:Misplaced Anger by kneemoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it really misplaced though?
    If the administration had gone to your local mafia syndicate and asked them to rough you up to get some information out of you, is the administration the only one to blame? I know its a tad hyperbolic, but what about those wonderful nuremberg trials? We held people accountable for their own actions, orders be damned. So why are we supposed to give these (corporations as people) people a pass?
    BOTH the administration AND the telcos broke the law, and BOTH should be held accountable, whether or not they are is a different story.

    --
    My Sig Sucks
  40. George Bush is ... Batman!! by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a weird art imitates life senerio, this summer's hollywood movie Batman has him doing cell phone evesdroping on the entire city to catch the Joker.