Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues To Overturn Telecom Immunity
Mike writes "The title says it all — The EFF is suing to have the unconstitutional telecom immunity overturned. 'In a brief filed in the US District Court [PDF] in San Francisco, the EFF argues that the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law. [...] "We have overwhelming record evidence that the domestic spying program is operating far outside the bounds of the law," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it."'"
Help us continue this fight: http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping
We've just opened a new page for student rates: http://www.eff.org/students
Third-party details on how EFF compares to other non-profit groups: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576
(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)
This administration does what it wants, without repercussions. They've already done several things that go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They don't care, won't care, and have never cared about trifles like the founding documents of the country.
Pop Quiz:
Which Presidential aspirant voted for the FISA Amendments Act:
A) John McCain
B) Barack Obama
C) A & B
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Qwest stood up for our rights and turned down the requests.
They also paid the price in the form of losing some lucrative government contracts that had previously been a lock.
Not all of the telco's cooperated.
"Quest Communications... refused the NSA's request for its customers phone records based on the advice of legal counsel, the former CEO said in a statement released on Friday. "
http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/208
no, but they would fear a million people all with shotguns.
When most people have small arms, invading forces have a few choices no matter how good of armor or weapons the invaders:
1) take out the leader, and politically convince the followers
2) convince the leader, and hope the followers follow
3) Kill everyone
4) Lose
We see (again) in IRAQ that prolific small arms cannot be overcome be force alone, unless you decide to just kill everyone, and destroy most everything in the process.
IE technically we can kill everyone with superior fire power, but most of the things of value goes with them. Having a government over no people means no government.
It doesn't matter, if everyone has a shotgun, or a sub machine gun. If you can't take them alive one by one, then your going to need majority support. Without a decent projectile weapon, all they would need to enforce a entire population is a means of keeping a separation.