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."
hate to suggest it, but aren't retroactive laws mostly unconstitutional? I realize this is simply putting the punishments back into place that were in place when the acts were committed. They can remove the immunity that was inacted to block the EFF's civil lawsuits, but thinking they could be held criminally liable again my just be wishful thinking.
Oops, meant "might not be completely the opposite of what it stands for."
Their guy got elected president, but has said that he doesn't support legislation like this. In many ways, Obama is only slightly different than Bush. This is fodder for rabid supporters, but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing.
It's also a damned stupid thing for them to do, because pandering to the fringe here only further hampers their party's electoral chances next year.
But, it's all good, I suppose, because the Administration's actions on the possible prosecution of government employees (CIA) sends the signal. Being hellbent for vengeance makes for an awfully short political future. In this case, it'll likely be for the President.
I don't see how that's going to be in the bill when and if it's passed. Obama made it abundantly clear his choice was to "move on", and the Democrats don't quite have the numbers they need to push that through, or the desire. Perhaps it's just a negotiating ploy to get something else out of the right.
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
Good work guys, soon the Constitution will only be suitable as toilet paper (just like my 401k).
At least if it's in the bathroom, some congressmen might actually READ it.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
So you meant completely the opposite of what your sentence stood for?
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.
Actually, you had it right the first time. You see, as pointed out above, this isn't really JUSTICE in any sense: the telecoms were doing what they're gov't asked them in a time of fear and urgency, and the telecoms said "well, we have two choices:"
1) "Not only is this illegal, but its also wrong to invade privacy like that. No." Government definitely doesn't listen and/or just ignores what the telecoms want from the FCC later down the road. Public gets mad when government is all like "Hey, we asked for help against these terrorists but [BIG TELCO] said 'No.'" Telcos are bad guys.
2) "Well, its wrong, but you're the government, and I'm scared. Yes." Government gets information, wiretapping becomes public knowledge, public gets upset and government introduces bills to take the blame from them and put it on the telcos. Telcos are bad guys.
No matter what, they didn't have a chance. Risk being unpatriotic now or risk being unpatriotic later, either way the government was right and the telcos were wrong, because thats the law. Sounds like sweet, sweet JUSTICE to me.
Save your breath, this is all about charging windmills and being too ignorant to understand they are being manipulated and told to look in the other direction while something serious goes on. The weak will follow the lead who can play them the easiest. For some, it's the tele-evangelist saying give me money or god will kill my dog (or was it him), for others, it's politicians acting like they are squeaky clean by playing on the emotions of others to hide their own dirty work.
Here is the thing, the Telecoms already have immunity under existing laws if the administration presented them with acceptable documentation claiming to of had the authority to gather the information. Now, contrary to what anyone might think, Bush isn't dumb, I mean he got elected twice and convinced congress to almost unanimously take us into two wars as well as not pull us out by ending the funding. Some will claim that it was the people pulling Bush's strings that did that and even if it's true, there is nothing to make anyone believe that they magically stopped with the NSA TSP. So what I'm getting at is, it's highly likely that the telecoms were presented with authentic enough documentation that they will slide out from under any liability for breaking any laws. That always was the law ever since 1968 when the first wire tap laws were made. The problem the telecoms had was that the administration was claiming national security secrete making it a felony to present the documentation that would serve as their complete defense.
What this was originally about is sueing the telecoms to get information on who was being watched by the government so as they could either sue the government (and be rich bitch), sue the telecoms who couldn't answer with their affirmative defense without ricking prison time, (rich again bitch) or inform certain people of those actions the government was taking against them. This bill being considered does nothing but allow that to happen but the judicial system isn't really that stupid. Most likely, Obama would allow (either by court case or congress acting on his behalf) certain judges, most likely FISA judges to view the documentation the government presented the telecoms and affirm if it was official enough to satisfy the law for the complete defense. This means that the telecoms will still end up with immunity and the information will still remain secrete. Meanwhile, something more sinister and serious will be going on because Bashing Bush is just as important as Brittany Spears losing 5 lbs by taking ex-lax or what ever she has done lately that's more important then anything else.
It's just something to keep the idiots occupied. Bread and circuses so to speak.
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
Let's say these evil telecom companies are charged. What then? Throw the building into jail? Of course not.
So what will happen is:
1) some executive who cooperated with his government will be thrown in jail (that's really going to improve your life, isn't it?), and teach everybody to stand up and resist any cooperation with the government (join your local militia today!).
and,
2) the telecom companies will get a gigantic fine to teach them a lesson! $50 zillion dollars to the government! That'll show them! Just don't be surprised when your next phone bill comes and there is a $25 "fine retirement surcharge". They'll need to get the money somewhere and take a guess where it's going to come from.
The bottom line: The only people getting screwed are people who only followed instructions from the government, and every single customer of the telecoms. The only people benefiting from this, are lawyers and Washington - the people directly responsible.
So yeah - let's go get those telcos and show them who's boss!
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
Except for the little fact that they need the judiciary's approval for stuff like this, we call those approvals warrants.
The executive branch does not have the power to break the law, no matter what two republican presidents have suggested.
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.
The bottom line really would be that the $25 fee would only apply to those who buy services from these folks. As Qwest did not comply guess who lots of folks would be buying T1s from?
The entire point of fining a business is too encourage people not too do business with them by increasing their costs. The people who benefit from that are their competitors who obeyed the law.
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.
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.
Given that that it's congress that creates and changes law (judicial branch interprets them), I say the Nuremberg example doesn't apply. If it does, then we should never...EVER...trust the government now or in the future to infinity.
Life is not for the lazy.
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?
Four words: piercing the corporate veil. Once the company is opened up to civil liability, lawsuits will be filed, and during discovery, those lawsuits will likely uncover information about who knew what and when. At that point, depending on what they turn up, criminal charges might be filed against some of them.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Sometimes it's tough to do the right thing. Life's not fair, Santa Claus is really your mom and dad, etc. News at 11:00.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
#1: obey the law and require the government to actually take the trivial steps required to get warrants in a FISA court. You protect the public's rights, protect your own backside, and force government to follow its own rules.
#2: break the law and become criminals. You break the law and encourage the intelligence community to be lazy (get everything and sort through it later).
How is this a difficult choice again? #2 really doesn't help anyone. The only explanation I can think of for companies bending so easily is if they did so in exchange for the government looking the other way about something else. I'd be interested to find out what. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The Nuremberg example has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with morality. The actions of the Nazis were legal in Germany at the time, but they were still heinous and wrong. Similarly, while the government may have told the telecoms that their acts were legal (which they may not even have been, because although IANAL, I would say that widespread warrantless wiretapping is in violation of the Constitution), that does not necessarily have bearing on whether the acts were wrong and should be punished.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The United States is supposedly a nation ruled by law. In a nation ruled by law, not even the government has the right to order you to break the law, and in such a nation, the government cannot possibly make a meaningful commitment to protect you as part of the bargain.
In short, the Telecoms and the CIA shouldn't have broken the law, not even for the President (who is not above the law either), and in doing so, no matter how strident the declarations of immunity, they put their necks out. If a future administration decides, for good or ill, to rescind any guarantees, you're are, as they say, up shit creek.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"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."
That's exactly what happened in Nuremberg. The nazi-government sanctioned violating dozens of rules and the people who executed those rules were later tried for following orders.
The idea of Nuremberg is that you cannot hide behind what the government orders.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Having all these bills with names like "USA-PATRIOT" and "JUSTICE" (and a few I can't remember offhand) does sound rather Orwellian. If Britain is "sleepwalking into 1984", then the US seems to be racing towards it as fast as possible...
The idea of Nuremberg is that you cannot hide behind what the government orders.
Well, not if you lose, anyway.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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"
Yes. but at least the democrats use lube, kiss you on the cheek and give you a tissue to wipe away the tears afterwards.
Somehow Qwest didn't see the "You have to do it if the government tells you" logic you claim AT&T and Verizon did. And they got shafted as a result.
Yes, you can refuse to obey an illegal order. The laws apply to you, the corporations, and the government, and the moment you forget that, you should expect to suffer the consequences.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I just want to say something to everyone who has replied: I'm not saying the telcos shouldn't be held responsible, I'm just saying that if they knew it was illegal and immoral, you better damn believe the government knew it was illegal and immoral too, and we shouldn't let them off the hook so easily just because they introduce legislation to protect themselves.
And guess which ruling cabal just lost one election they didn't plan to lose.
Are you sure they didn't plan to lose? Look at the candidates they ran. One could sure make an argument that somebody deliberately threw the game, if only so they could have someone else to blame for the train wreck resulting from 8 years of blinkered government-by-gut-instinct.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Only if you're poor. The republicans do the same if you're rich.
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.
Yes I do think the left has a much better record. Especially when it comes to public dissent.
Clinton had non-screened town hall meetings throughout his presidency, where he took questions from everybody.
Bush had screened fund raising events composed primarily of supporters, while any opposition was at a 'free speech zone' 3 to 5 miles away, or if you try to represent yourself as supporters, but then have the wrong bumper sticker on your car, then you get unceremoniously ejected. Even Fox news reported on this. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
With Obama, you again have non-screened town hall meetings, and people think it's cool to bring a weapon. And if you have the proper paperwork for that gun, they let you stay.
And yet you specifically mention public dissent.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
I'm sorry, did I not mention that the paper work is classified as national security secrets and it would be a felony for anyone at the telecoms to disclose that information punishable by 5 to life with the possibility of the death sentence?
If I did fail to mention it, that would be because it's only reported all over the place that Bush classified the documents. Most Bush bashers claim he only did it to hide his tracks from FOIA and others ventures. Obviously, it's more then that because Obama has been president for 9 months or more and not only are they still classified, Obama sent the justice department to court to defend the telecom immunity law back in feb when the EFF challenged it unsuccessfully. I sort of just assumed it was already known to anyone paying attention.
Ignore the facts and make silly statements elsewhere.
Maybe, if you're talking about some hypothetical conversation between the NSA and the telecom people before they agreed to do what the government wanted. It sucks for the telecoms, and it may even get them at least partially off the hook come trial time, but then again that's why these massive corporations have general counsels. Chances are what they really did was to weigh the illegality of the actions against the potential monetary harm that might come their way from pissing off the government and decided they didn't care all that much about the law.
That said, in public "the Government" has done no such thing. In fact exactly the opposite; a grant of immunity is the legal of equivalent of "okay, so there's a pretty good chance the courts will bitchslap you for this, but we're not going to let that happen." If the actions were clearly legal, immunity wouldn't have been necessary. You don't need protection from prosecution for something that's not illegal.
In any event, as I'm sure you've often seen quoted, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If I tell you murder is perfectly legal and you go and murder somebody, it doesn't get the off the hook. If the government tells the telecoms that what they're asking is perfectly legal and they do it, it doesn't get them off the hook. It was illegal or not regardless of who said what. All that matters is what laws were on the books when it happened.