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."'"
Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it.
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.
What will happen? W will claim executive privilege, file papers blocking the motion, then make looking at the papers illegal again citing executive privilege.
It's Orwellian, but that - or something equally bizarre - is what will happen. Count on it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The problem is 49% of Americans don't understand what we fought for in the revolution, or in the World Wars. They thing that "fighting for freedom" means going to another country. They think freedom means more TV channels. They think it is okay for the government to ignore the constitution if there is a 1 in a billion chance it will stop another 9/11.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
(Unknown - attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
Without a suit being filed, unconstitutional laws get to stay on the books, and they get enforced.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
> And so we get to a elect a new administration. One choice will trample our freedom from unauthorized search, the other will trample our freedom to own guns.
[citation needed]
Obama praised the Supreme Court ruling that found an individual right to own guns (as opposed to a right for state militias to own guns).
While I have had similar thoughts in the past, I can't necessarily find anything unconstitutional about this. Congress has offered immunity in the past for people who claim the Fifth Amendment while testifying, not to mention States Evidence mob trials. While I don't like it, it seems to kind of the opposite of Ex Post Facto. I am also not a constitutional scholar, and hate the idea that these guys can get off scott free, but there is precident to limitation of liability, which has seemed to be upheld in the past. Can someone please convince me constitutionally that I am wrong? I'd love to be in this case.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Get a law degree and pass the bar exam
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- from the American Bill Of Rights
I live in Canada. Why do I know your constitution better than you?
If the telcos didn't do anything illegal,...
Why do they want immunity? Why object to this case?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
With you on FISA, but that 2nd amendment stuff is a misread. 2A guarantees the right to bear arms *as part of a well organized militia*. It does not guarantee individuals the right to own guns for whatever purposes they want.
The only reason that politicians support this misread is that, if anything, they would prefer that people would forget about the constitutional blessing of militias.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Read up on the topic, and explain the issues to your friends. Get them to talk to their representative (or even better, their prospective representative if you're in a state that's facing a change of incumbent this election). Wiretapping has had an amazing response among politically-active americans (far more than many other tech civil liberties topics), but it needs to be kept in the limelight for any change to take place.
This is true whether you're a republican, independent, or democrat. There will be a large re-alignment of issues after this election: there's no reason why the Republican Party will want to be associated with previous policies of surveillance and co-opting private companies for government intrusion. Make it clear that you think that standing against surveillance is the right thing to do, and supporting the encroachment of civil liberties that has happened in the last eight years is wrong, no matter your party.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
From Wikipedia: "The essential problem was posed by Plato in the Republic, his work on government and morality. The perfect society as described by Socrates, the main character of the work (see Socratic dialogue), relies on laborers, slaves and tradesmen. The guardian class is to protect the city. The question is put to Socrates, "Who will guard the guardians?" or, "Who will protect us against the protectors?" Plato's answer to this is that they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a "noble lie." The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."
Having moved back into civilian life, I realize that our country's founding fathers knew their shit. While a few are disillusioned, most learn soon enough.
-- Wondering how long until the internet becomes fully corporatist, like television.
You missed my point. Protecting the second amendment at the exclusion of the others is flat out insane if resisting tyranny is the point of the second amendment. Would you let someone rape your daughter so you can keep a gun to protect her from rapists?
Ok, so *maybe* the companies thought they were legally required to disclose the information. Or *maybe* they were intimidated into doing it. But those would be perfectly valid arguments in court. That's not to say that they are necessarily true, or that they would hold up, or that the companies shouldn't have known better. But isn't deciding things like that the reason we have a court system? Again, granting them immunity seems at best unnecessary and at worst unjust.
Regarding the "We thought we had to because the government told us to" scenario, it sounds a bit implausible. First of all, we're not talking about your average Joe on the street getting hassled and illegally searched by a couple of street cops. The upper levels of the large telcos are very savvy and have access to plenty of legal advice. And even most average Joes know that they should not voluntarily submit to a search without the officer having probable cause and/or a warrant. Second, the telcos gave away something that wasn't theirs to give. If you want to let the police in for a warrantless search of your house, go ahead. But if you have a spare key to my house, you'd better think long and hard before giving that up for the same warrantless search, and after that long hard think you should probably come to the conclusion that you need to see a warrant first.
Yeah so that you have a chance to be the Tyrant :).
;)
Violent revolutions tend to become dictatorships. Because the bunch capable of and willing to exert the most violence will end up at the top.
That is why Karl Marx (and Engels) encouragement of violence was a fatal "design flaw" in their "guide to starting Communism".
Only in a few rare cases has a violent revolution immediately resulted in a peaceful democracy. Only a very few would hand over power once they have seized it.
I strongly recommend sticking to peaceful means. You might enjoy being a Tyrant a bit too much for your own good.
OK you'd probably resist the temptation, but maybe not your "friend" who kills you.