Slashdot Mirror
Bush Demands Amnesty for Spying Telecoms
The Bush administration and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are poised to square off in front of a San Francisco federal judge Tuesday to litigate the constitutionality of legislation immunizing the nation's telecoms from lawsuits accusing them of helping the government spy on Americans without warrants. "'The legislation is an attempt to give the president the authority to terminate claims that the president has violated the people's Fourth Amendment rights,' the EFF's [Cindy] Cohn says. 'You can't do that.'"
...why doesn't he just issue a blanket pardon?
My guess: he doesn't want to take responsibility for getting the telcos off the hook.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What could possibly go wrong?
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Sure you can!
Just have Poppy buy you into office so that the people that have the strings attached to important parts of your body can pull what they want, when the want.
Seriously, we have just witnessed the greatest bald-faced rape of the Constitution since ... forever. The thing (or the most recent thing) that turns my stomach is that there is a very good chance they will get away with it.
Actually he did that. You can't say that "You can't do that", because he did that. The Bush Administration is asking for retrospective immunity - that's a lot worse than asking for permission to do it.
The rest of the world is watching this one closely as well - it's not just the US that's interested in the outcome of this incident.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
... why doesn't [Bush] just issue a blanket pardon?
Perhaps because pardons apply to criminal cases (government vs. person-to-be-punished-for-wrongdoing) while these are civil cases (wronged people demanding damages be paid by those who wronged them). I think the pardon power only applies to the former.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
All slashdoting aside, how would we deal with this situation? I know we're mainly a bunch of nerds, but aren't we the most influential people on the planet in today's society? What could we seriously do to circumvent this policy? Any ideas? Come on people, we're the brains of the world!
Doesn't someone need to be harmed in order to sue? And in order to prove you were harmed, you'd need to have access to state secrets, which can't happen in the new America. Therefore, no harm, no standing to sue, no case.
I don't think you can sue for a general affront to the Constitution.
The telecoms involved should be seriously fried for their eager collaboration with unconstitutional, Orwellian no-probable-cause surveillance. I am pleased to know that they overstepped themselves to the point of hacking Obama's old flip-phone account.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335143,00.asp
They deserve to have an incoming President on their hands who knows how untrustworthy they can be.
Vote with your dollars: go over to Credo.
You're full of shit. If you really were protecting freedom you'd have done something by now. Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
So, does that mean that you are okay to effectively have anyone and everyone who wants to listening to your calls or reading your emails in case you are a terrorist waiting for the right moment?
Before you really answer, think about all the stuff that you write in email to close friends, or in sms to loved ones, or over the phone. All that embarrassing stuff that isn't meant for any audience outside you and the receiving end. All THAT stuff becomes open.
I might be naive in my thinking, but why spend billions on listening to everyone's conversations when you could spend the same money to make their lives good. Happy content people don't go blowing themselves up or shoot random (or not so random) people by the bucketful. Happy content people lead happy content and productive lives. Eavesdropping on everyone won't make everyone happy.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
He'd catch the terrorists first, worry about paperwork and suspensions afterwards.
I think that's a lesson for all you Fourth Amendment Nazis.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The terrorists also used a tool of communication known as "spoken language" to transmit information to other terrorists.
Telescreens are now being installed in your house to make sure that you do not transmit terrorist information when using the aforementioned tool in your home.
Obama voted for it too you know.
If he were really against it as some of the more delusion supporters claim, then he would issue a statement at this time supporting making it unconstitutional. Expect no statement.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
wait just one minute there.
using your logic lets go through a scenario.
Rape. I'm sure that no one has to say how terrible an experience that is. and it is almost always males attacking females.
we can stop rape completely. we just need to completely remove the genitalia of every single man. without the tools to commit the crime there will be no possibility of rape happening.
it will be completely stopped.
Is that worth it to you?
now i hear you saying, "that is completely different and barbaric". no it's not. you want to take away everyone's right to something just so that you can stop the >1% of the population that uses that same right for deviant behavior. it's asinine.
the right to privacy is no different.
if you want to give away your rights that fine.
Don't try to take away mine!
The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.
This was why immunity should NOT be warranted! And before you start screaming national security, exactly what kind of information that could be brought out in a civil case which would damage national security? Methods? Competent terrorists aren't going to be caught by dragnet style filtering anyway unless its technical prowess is far beyond what most experts agree is currently possible.
This is either protecting corporate cronies, protecting themselves, or most likely both.
At the very least, it means there are two sides to the "eavesdropping" question. It's a question for thoughtful discussion, not the sloganeering and bumper-sticker Constitutional Law pronouncements everyone has heard a thousand times.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives. That's a benefit that has to be weighed against the costs. But most of the partisan discussions on this subject don't fairly acknowledge that benefit. Terrorism is real -- the terrorists have reminded us of that again.
The preventable damage caused by terrorism can be seen stacked in body bags on the news broadcasts (again). What was the damage caused by the eavesdropping? Are we all 100% sure the eavesdropping is so much worse that it could never even be considered, even with safeguards? I'm not.
No where in the constitution is there an express 'right to privacy', this is a fact, if you disagree try reading the document.
The 'right' to privacy is a right made by the USSC and though we have a long standing tradition of following laws made on the bench there is nothing that the court can do to enforce its own laws.
If we want to live in a society free of totalitarian style thought policing and information scanning then we need more than simple rulings against warrantless wiretaps. What we must have in order to protect us from unchecked power in the executive branch is both an independent judiciary and a legislative branch that values personal freedom.
Without a constitutional amendment to hold anyone who violates our rights to privacy like this again accountable for treason we are doing nothing less than tacitly consenting to such despicable acts whenever the executive branch finds it convenient.
(!happy) !=> suicidal killer
hopeless => suicidal killer
There are plenty unhappy people in America but no homegrown suicide bombers. What we don't have is a system that explicitly sets out to systematically oppress and render voiceless segments of the population - that is what's behind suicide bombers, because it takes away any value life has.
Then for the most part we get into a bullshit pissing contest of "your voice can't be heard because you're violent" and "we turn to violence because you won't let us be heard" to avoid anyone having to admit they're wrong.
"Seen no ballot boxing..."
Yeah, I mean, the NRA has NEVER endorsed or opposed a political candidate. And even if they did, it's not like their members would be swayed to vote for them. Nope, never happened. Not. Ever.
Oh wait, except always and forever. Other than "always" and "forever" it never happened.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives.
But the problem is that we don't know who they are. You need to listen to millions of conversations to have a chance of getting down to what you are interested in.
And lets face it, it's not like they aren't going to be talking in coded messages to one another. I am sure that "Hey Terrorist friend, that bomb you asked for is running a day late, but we will still get it down there and blow shit up good" might sound like "Hi Bob, I will be picking up the milk on the way home, but I am running a little late."
As for the thought that there is some lowly paid government worker listening in on a conversation over the phone I have while away on business with my partner? Yeah, great. That just really works for me.
I hate to follow to logical conclusions, but correct me if I am wrong here:
1) Eaves dropping law gets passed.
2) Terrorist learn that they can be snooped on via phone.
3) Terrorists change communication method to avoid snooping.
4) Everyone else gets snooped on as the law is already enacted.
Did I miss something obvious?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Not to jump on the postback wagon, but isn't the whole concept of the American judicial system based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't listening in on anyone's conversations sort of take a 180 degree turn on that whole concept?
For the record, I am neither in America or American.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
has nothing to do with whether he can -- legally.
And this is exactly that kind of case in point... this last Presidential administration -- and Congress, too -- have done quite a few things lately that they probably can't do... legally. The fact that they did do them has no bearing on the law.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 4th specifies the groundwork for it, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it exists.
Also, the wiretaps can be a violation of the 1st as well, because they could chill protected speech.
I'd say one good definition of "epic fail" (as they love to say on Digg) is to have an argument beaten, crunched, and steam-rollered by three Bill of Rights amendments.
Interesting timing for this now that we've learned that the gunmen in Mumbai used Blackberries to communicate. I'm sure no one violated their rights by eavesdropping on their communications.
I believe this is where a warrant comes into play. You indicate there is a case for eaves dropping and if there is the judge gives you a warrant. Basically what a warrant gives you a sanctioned action for a specific circumstance, so that you aren't using your powers for things that otherwise affect the freedoms of your populous.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I don't have a problem with wiretapping or eavesdropping if the people wanting to do it go out and get a warrant. If you can prove to a judge that there is sufficient need to listen to a particular person's conversations without their knowing, that's fine. Before anyone goes down the "There isn't always time..." bollocks. If the need is there, then any paperwork can be rushed to the tune of insignificance.
What I do have a problem with is effectively taking off any and all controls about who does what and when. A blanket "telco's can't get into trouble" makes it much too easy for anyone to tune into anything they want.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I'm sure no one violated their rights by eavesdropping on their communications.
That's such an ignorant argument. They could have just as easily used walkie-talkies available at almost any department store, or spent some money and got some military grade communications for the cost of a few hand grenades. Or cell phones. Or satellite phones. Or wi-fi. Or broadband internet. You going to scan every frequency? Monitor every mode of communication? And it's not like they were sending detailed plans back and forth on their Blackberrys, it was tactical comm.
The type of wholesale spying the Bush administration is trying to promote and you seem to be trying to protect not only undermines the Constitution, it doesn't work. All the monitoring we have in place around the world didn't stop these yo-yo's. And it won't stop the next group. So what are you going to do then? Your philosophy is a failure. It's a false sense of security that provides no value in protection.
Combating terrorism by spying on Americans. Brilliant.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I call bullshit. They only support candidates who are pro-gun. They aren't pushing forward any political agenda other then gun ownership. The NRA could give a rats ass about political freedoms outside of this. This should be apparent in their wide spread support for our current administration. If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
And to the other poster here:
What the hell are you blathering about? We DO in fact know that the actions of the telcos (and the government people who setup / enabled it) were acting illegally. There is no reasonable question that this is true. Though, by our own rules, it will need to be proved in court... which is a different matter.
As for taking terrorism seriously, do you? As an individual, you are quite literally much more likely -- by orders of magnitude! -- to die in your bathtub than from a terrorist attack. So why aren't you advocating government cameras in everybody's bathroom? It would save so many lives! More than any "war on terrorism" has any chance of saving.
If you think that is a ridiculous example, then you are beginning to get the point. Because it is real.
Why can't we save lives and follow the law? What was so desperate that we couldn't change the laws during the 8+ years that this was going on?
This program was against the law and the constitution of the United States of America. Period. This is not in serious dispute, that's why the immunity deal was necessary. Immunity was granted to prevent this from ever going to trial and bringing out the facts of the case. If everything was above board, why not prove it in a court of law?
And you are right, there is little in my post about terrorism. It wasn't about terrorism. It was about our government and how they are trampling the laws and traditions of this country.
The choice is not breaking laws to catch terrorists or doing nothing and letting them kill Americans; that's a false dichotomy. We can, and have for many, many years, held to the rule of law and protected our citizens. We can continue to do so.
The choice is protecting our citizens while adhering to the rule of law or not. This government has chosen not to. If the laws were insufficient, they had the option of trying to change those laws. They chose not to. This is completely unacceptable in any society that wishes to be considered democratic and those responsible need to be held to account.
Nor would they have had their rights violated under FISA as it stood before 9/11, which would have allowed eavesdropping on those Blackberries under these circumstances but would also have required the Feds to get a warrant within 72 hours after the fact. This protects individual rights under the 4th Amendment, but allows for emergencies such as happened in Mumbai. The issue here is that Bush Feds made a broad sweep of everyone's phone records after 9/11 with no attempt to obtain warrants as required by law. If the request had been legitimate, then they should have been able to obtain warrants from the FISA court which has approved such retroactive warrants something like 95% of the time. The Bush administration pulled a similar stunt with airline passenger data after 9/11, too, although unlike phone records, there was no specific law requiring warrants in order to obtain that data.
FreeSpeech.org
Agents fighting terrorism will tell you they are not always available for those situations. People have died because no warrant was available in time.
Those agents would be lying. FISA allowed for retroactive warrants to be issued 72 hours after the fact.
FreeSpeech.org
Well, he already voted for FISA, so I guess he won't. Damn.
but you are wrong if you think the majority of their members feel this way.
The NRA is a single-issue organization. It was created to be a single-issue organization. And it concentrates (as it was designed to do) on that single issue.
You seem to be blaming them for that. Why? They are not "Republican lobbyists" or anything like that. I think you have your people mixed up.
You are making a big mistake if you confuse the NRA with the people who support the NRA. There is a vast difference.
Of course there will always be a few exceptions, but you find those anywhere.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal jurisdiction.
Please stop listening to the propaganda of televangelists. Seriously. The 9th circuit court is overturned less often than the average if you base it on the number of cases they hear... they just hear a lot more cases than most courts.
I am actually happy they stick to an issue. They are the National Rifle Association. I would rather join multiple groups that support my various beliefs than try to find the one that best represents all my opinions. I don't really want their opinion on other issues any more than I want to eat a Linux powered sandwich...
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
You are confusing cause and effect.
A law is in effect until it is repealed or invalidated. Failure to repeal or invalidate it does not mean that it is legal! It could be grossly unconstitutional, and unless and until someone successfully challenges it, it will remain in effect.
Historically, however, such laws have not lasted. Sooner or later, they have tended to be invalidated.
Uh, yes, that's the desired effect. We don't want corporate co-conspirators helping the government do covert and unconstitutional things. The telecoms, like all big companies, have entire legal departments and no doubt numerous policies about these sorts of things, and they almost certainly had fair notice that what they were doing was at best fuzzy and most likely blatantly illegal. I've been all for suing their asses off since day 1, and even more so since their government cronies tried to cover them.
Call it a deterrent, call it vengeance, but I call it justice.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
You probably should actually look at the candidates that they endorse. NRA support for Democratic candidates is not a rare thing by any stretch of the imagination, provided the candidate's positions are consistent with the NRA's stance. As a matter of fact, they endorsed the Democratic candidate for the state House in my district.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Hey, don't count Bush out yet -- he's still got a good two months to make it happen!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The main difference between then and now is that common people who would otherwise have no clue about what went on now have access to the discrepancies, and other peoples' interpretations and compilations of them. Sure, no one in America loved the Japanese immediately after Perl Harbor, but most of them also weren't aware of the economic warfare that was going on leading up to the attack, so they felt vindicated in ripping the constitution when it came to the Japanese Americans. It was controlled ignorance. It's much harder to do these days.
On a slightly scary, related note, now that we have a President-Elect who built his campaign using the internet, and who was able to control leaks so tightly that no one outside the circle knew who was being talked about for appointments, what else might he be able to hide under his hat? I'm a mild fan of his, barring the FISA vote, but the ability to direct his staff with such precision on information policy might not bode well if he has a shady agenda. I suggest we watch closely and listen where we can.
The NRA works to defend the 2nd Amendment; the ACLU works to defend the other nine (in the Bill of Rights). I see nothing wrong with this, except that the ACLU ought to care about #2 too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
More than that, the 9th circuit has a tendency to take on cases that are a lot more interesting than the other courts when it comes to people's rights, etc. Challenges to civil rights violations and other constitutional challenges tend to occur in the 9th circuit because the people who are motivated to file those challenges tend to live within its jurisdiction more often than in any other circuit. Thus, because of how high-profile and constitutionally important their cases are, they tend to be heard much more often by the SCOTUS.
When viewed as a percentage of cases heard by the SCOTUS, their overturn rate is higher than the average (about 90% compared with about 75%), but at least in 2006 nowhere near as high as some other circuits (100% for the 3rd (NJ, DE, PA) and 5th circuits (LA, MS, TX)). Source: volokh.com. The 5th, BTW, is probably the most conservative circuit court in the U.S.
So there.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.