Slashdot Mirror
New "JUSTICE" Act Could Roll Back Telecom Immunity
Asmodae writes to tell us about a bill proposed in Congress that could roll back telecom retroactive immunity along with adding other privacy safeguards. The "Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counter-Terrorism Efforts" (JUSTICE) Act advocates the "least intrusive means" of information collection and imposes many limitations on the process. "One of the most significant aspects of the JUSTICE Act is that it will remove the retroactive immunity grants that were given to the telecom companies that participated in the NSA warrantless surveillance program. The companies that cooperated with the surveillance program likely violated several laws, including section 222 of the Communications Act, which prohibits disclosure of network customer information. The immunity grants have prevented the telecommunications companies that voluntarily participated in this program from being held accountable in court."
If you really believe that the left is less intrusive of civil liberties than the right, you just don't have enough experience with the left. Or you're willfully ignoring it. They just usually attack different civil liberties than (some of) the right attacks, but you can bet your bottom dollar that once they have their highest priorities taken care of, they'll go after the rest. One of the first to go will be - no surprise - freedom to dissent. That's neither particularly left nor right, governments of all stripes tend to dislike criticism and will suppress it if they can, by any means they can.
Don't believe any of that? Try living and working in a communist country for a while. It'll open your eyes.
"but aren't retroactive laws mostly unconstitutional?" So are unconstitutional laws to begin with.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Yes, while I can hope that this is actually a bill with no hidden gotchas, given it's using a red hot item for it's ticket in, I would expect all sorts of nasty DMCA like shit hidden it's recesses.
Ok, so the government says to the telecoms "We need access to prevent terrorism, don't worry it's all ok." The telecoms say "Ummm, ok. You're the government so it's not like we can say no, and I guess we don't want any more planes crashing into buildings and stuff." Now the government is saying "Oh, remember when we said not to worry, it's all ok? Well, it's not ok after all." Now the telecoms are all like "WTF?!?!"
It's the same thing as when the white house said to the CIA "Torture those terrorists because they might know about a really bad terror plot. It's really important. Trust us, it's ok" So the CIA guys go "okey dokey, one waterboarded terrorist coming up". Now the government is all like "Um, sorry it wasn't ok. Now we're going to prosecute you CIA guys" and the CIA guys are like "WTF?!?!?"
Seriously, it's not the telecoms, it's the government. End of story. Our government doesn't have a freaking clue one way or the other. It's either torturing terrorists or giving them sympathy cards.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
The durable facts that matter is that they committed an offense at the time it was illegal.
After the fact, they can be granted immunity, and it can be repealed, repeatedly even. The fact that they broke a a law that existed at the time cannot be changed. Only the present enforcement of the past violation can be changed.
They cannot of course change the definition of what was illegal in the past, or the scope, or the punishment. THAT would be unconstitutional.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Because they should have said:
"Come back with a warrant"
In my job I have said that to police officers, well really I said "You will have to speak to our lawyer". Which is really just another way of saying the same thing.
The ones that started the problem, from workers of the NSA all up to G.W.Bush, passing for all in the congress that voted for that law, are accountable in any way for that privacy violations?
Probably those telcos aren't exactly saints, but here the blame is put in the wrong target.
The Nuremberg defense did not work the there, and should not be allowed here either.
The CIA folks should get to join the telcom CEOs in jail. Just because your boss told you to do something illegal does not make it right nor legal.
No, really, it's not okay. Once you establish the precedent that it's okay to break the law as long as someone in the executive branch told you to, you have handed an insane amount of power to the government. The correct response to this kind of request from the executive branch is to request confirmation from the judiciary and the precedent that you want to set is that not requiring this confirmation is dangerous to your future wellbeing.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Please mod this up some more (it's only on +3 now). The executive branch is not meant to be a dictatorship. If they come to you and ask you to do something that doesn't seem legal, then the correct response is to ask for confirmation from one of the other two branches of government, most commonly the judiciary. The the courts agree that the President has the power to ask you to do something, and it turns out that they are wrong, then you should have immunity. If you just did what the President asked without bothering to check that it's legal, then you should not.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If someone demands they break the law at gun point, call the cops. Since that's not the case here,
If the government says "Give us this thing the law specifically requires you to demand a court order for", you should... demand a court order.
If they say, "Give it to us without a court order, or we'll shut you down", ask how they intend to shut down a major telecom without a court order. Try not to giggle.
Nobody in their right mind thought the alternative was "being forced to close" Notably, Qwest didn't. They seemed to have mastered the phrase "No, that's illegal."
They were legally required to not allow these wiretaps without a court order. This requirement was supposed to hold even if the government asked them to do it. This requirement was supposed to hold particularly, specifically, and exactly if the government asked. That's the whole point of the law: The government isn't allowed to ask for this, so don't give it to them.
Cooperation with the government is not the highest duty of citizens or corporations. Nor is it an affirmative defense to any criminal act.
Your statement acts as if "the government" is a singular entity. Some government members asked the telecoms to break the law. Others are now saying they should be held accountable. And yes, you can say no to the government. If they come to my house and ask me to spy on my neighbor, I can say no.
If however, the telecoms were forced or coerced or threatened, that's another matter.
Allow me to explain.
So you're equating bugging...
From GPP's post: "The CIA folks should get to join...in jail." The CIA was torturing people who have never been convicted in either a civilian court or a military tribunal. So much for "innocent until proven guilty"! And you bought right into it. When the telcos started delivering communications to the Feds without judicial oversight, they became guilty of breaking the law, too. Is gassing someone for their ethnicity equivalent to aiding and abetting illegal wiretapping? Of course not. But both are violations of the law, and both should be punished under the law. The punishment should reflect the severity of the crime (gassing > waterboarding > illegal wiretapping), but it's completely stupid to argue that, since wiretapping is not nearly as evil as gassing families of Jews, those who assisted with the wiretapping should receive a "get-out-of-jail-free" card.
...Al-Qaeda operatives...
Ummm...alleged Al-Qaeda operatives. Refer to my comment above.
/. about racial profiling to see if the same thing has happened in the U.S. Or better yet, watch the TSA's propaganda, excuse me, "training videos" that flight instructors have to watch every year if they want to remain legal. When I watched them, I wasn't sure if I should laugh or be horrified that they essentially are telling flight schools/independent instructors to be suspicious of people of Arabic heritage.
Furthermore, Nazi Germany did, in fact, use similar tactics to rile up the German people against the Jews -- identify a bogeyman, play on the people's fears, then stir up a nation to villify an entire race of people. Read the comments here on
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
In order to stand trial for war crimes, don't you have to lose a war?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The point here is that the Government previously said it was legal. Then after the fact, pull the rug out from underneath organizations in order to prosecute them.
"Da Gubbmint" is not a single entity. What defines what is legal are the LAWS of the land, not officials who are supposed to enforce them. Officials frequently break the law, and just 'cause you worked with a bad official doesn't mean you are protected.
You aren't protected, even if the bad official is the president. You break the law, you pay the price.
There is no doubt that the telecoms have some of the best legal advisors in the land, who should have informed the executives that the government requests were NOT in accordance with the laws of the land.
And they weren't. Warrantless surveillance, in numerous forms, has been found many times in history to clearly violate constitutional principles. The competent legal representatives should have advised the telcos to STEER CLEAR. But instead, they stuck a deal.
And the telcos need to pay.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.