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."'"

6 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Noob questions by philspear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Right, I understand that the administration does what it wants ignoring the consitution, and I want to see them jailed for it. And I understand that telecoms were complicit in that. That's about all I know about the case right now.

    It seems a bit different from someone driving the getaway car for a bank heist, if nothing else in scale of the crime. Have any laws been broken by the telecos? Is there a law saying that you must obey the constitution even when ordered not to by the government? There is a law against aiding and abetting someone who robs a bank, but I would imagine there's no law against aiding the president when he urinates on the constitution. Is it that they broke privacy laws without a proper warant?

    It seems to me that if I were the owner of a telecom company, and some government agent or the president was telling me to turn over documents, I'd consult my lawyers, sure, but if they came back with "Uh... we really have no clue as to what you should do, there's not much precedent here..." then what? If this was a case of the executive branch saying "We passed this law that says you have to turn over these documents to us or you're going to jail, we don't need a warrant," what is the teleco supposed to do? Claim powers of judicial review, say the president is being unconstitutional, and no?

  2. Re:Good luck with that by mweather · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What good is the right to own guns if the gun owners let the government take away all their other rights?

  3. Re:Good luck with that by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The difference is that people are, for whatever reason, absolutely terrified of W. A Democratic congress refused to even censure him for anything he's done. And he's done a lot that's wrong - just ask Dennis Kucinich. You'd think after the whole Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco they'd be dying for some payback. But they didn't go for it. Why?

    Dick Cheney can shoot someone in the face, and what happens? The victim goes on TV and makes a public apology. For being shot in the face.

    This administration is absolutely terrifying. And everyone is afraid of them. That makes a coup possible. Improbable, sure. But not impossible.

    Again, I'm pretty certain I'm worrying over nothing, as you suggest. However I'm not 100% certain. I just want 1/20 to come and go as quickly as possible so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  4. Nixon by Irvu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll just invoke the American Politics version of Goodwin's Law here (hereafter the Nixon-Goodwin Law) and note that this kind of thinking was what prompted Nixon to push directly or indirectly (it is never quite clear how much he knew in advance) for the Watergate break-in and it's subsequent coverup. For Nixon the idea of losing the election was too much to bear.

    Now W may not be so far gone as to think he can just refuse to leave but the idea that he or overzealous supporters (of the type Nixon had) might go to great lengths to see McCain in, the man Bush said would lead his legacy in Iraq, well that is different.

    Note that I am not claiming McCain would do this or that it is being done. Nor am I claiming that other Republicans might not be horrified by it, There were Republicans who were, arguably, more angry with Nixon than others. Some of them such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had to wait a long time to get back into the Whitehouse (Cheney was then an aide and Rumsfeld a Deputy Secretary of Defense).

    However When Nixon did it, angry as people were no mobs formed and noone swung from trees. Indeed some of the key players such as G. Gordon Liddy are out today and practicing politics once more.

    More likely if nasty things occur and are discovered then some heads will roll but for those at the top they will, like Nixon, merely go home to be pardoned by their successor so that the nation "can heal".

    Lets be honest. Steal small and you go to a supermax. Steal big and you merely go home to live off your ill-gotten gains as Nixon did.

  5. Re:Good luck with that by SiriusRegalis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have you experienced the training that a person gets these days. My cousin, a "Take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands" bumper sticker type, joined up. A year later, he came back for a brief visit, and he has completely fallen into the "Civilians should not have more than small bolt action hunting rifles" thing. I have seen this with all three freinds/family that have joined.

    There is a trained contempt for the civilian population, we are not smart enough, caring enough, or involved enough to really understand. They, and their commanders, understand.

    It is the same attitude you see in police officers. Civilians are second class cattle to be herded.

    If you really think that in 10-20 years those troops, or police, or whatever we have will not shoot when ordered, then you are in for a big surprise. Though, most likely, by that time, we will have "nickled and dimed" our rights away, and those still defending them will be seen as fringe crazies, so shooting will be "justified".

  6. Re:Good luck with that by corbettw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't denigrate our men and women in uniform by suggesting they would willingly trample on the rights of the American people.

    I'm gonna go ahead and assume you never served in the military. Because if you had, you'd know that there are some seriously crazy mofos running loose in today's military.

    When I was first in the Navy, from '88 to '92, we used to shoot the shit on quiet midwatches, and one of the topics was what would happen if the officers staged a coup? The universal answer was always "We'd have some dead officers." And the JOs who would shoot the shit with us on those lonely vigils would universally agree, they'd be too busy shooting senior officers and admirals to worry whether or not Petty Officer Jones should be arrested for disobeying orders.

    I went back into the Naval Reserve after 9/11, and it was a different world. Some of the folks I worked with still had the same mindset ("Country and Constitution first, orders second"), but not all. A lot of them looked down on civilians as people who were not worthy of the rights they provided. Seriously, there are nutjobs in the military who think our Constitutional rights come from them! Not that these are natural rights that we have just because we're human.

    I don't know what the future holds, but I wouldn't bet my life, or the lives of my family, on some private not shooting into a crowd when ordered to do so. 20 years ago I would've, but things are just too different now.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.