Slashdot Log In
EFF Sues To Overturn Telecom Immunity
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Oct 17, 2008 01:37 PM
from the not-that-it-will-do-much-good dept.
from the not-that-it-will-do-much-good dept.
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."'"
Related Stories
Submission: EFF sues to overturn telcom immunity by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
If it happens, it happens, but at least they're trying.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
The administration has done only what it has been allowed to do. If nobody stops them there can be no other outcome. It is not the administration that has failed; it is us.
Parent
Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Pop Quiz:
Which Presidential aspirant voted for the FISA Amendments Act:
A) John McCain
B) Barack Obama
C) A & B
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
The real tragedy is that our congresscritters are allowing it to happen.
The republicans are enthusiastic about law and order at the expense of liberty, and the democrats have yet to become vertebrates.
Separation of powers isn't just a good idea, it's essential to the proper operation of our system.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The republicans are enthusiastic about law and order at the expense of liberty, and the democrats have yet to become vertebrates.
This describes the problem perfectly. I can't mod you up, I can only agree profusely with you.
Watching the Democrats fold on the telcom issue after they won a congressional majority is one of the single most disappointing things I've seen in my entire life. I've never felt more betrayed by politicians in my life ever.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't vote for them. Democrats and Republicans are not the only parties, and it really gets me irritated that people (en masse) seem to think they are.
Parent
Noob questions (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?
Parent
Not sure, but I do commend you on one thing (Score:4, Funny)
This is Slashdot, and you did work in a car analogy.
Parent
Re:Noob questions (Score:5, Informative)
Qwest stood up for our rights and turned down the requests.
They also paid the price in the form of losing some lucrative government contracts that had previously been a lock.
Parent
Re:Noob questions (Score:5, Insightful)
If the telcos didn't do anything illegal,...
Why do they want immunity? Why object to this case?
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
It does make me wonder...would they not have been better waiting another 3 weeks--or until late January--to bring this suit so W has less, uh, clout with which to sweep this under the rug?
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think that either side is going to stop unauthorized search/surveillance? Governments aren't well-known for giving up power unless forced into it. The guns are a completely separate issue. The national guard does not fear my shotgun.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (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".
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
I dare say you'll find more gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters in the Military than in any other significant grouping of American Citizens gathered from across the nation.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
LOL
I was just about to post a "hear, hear" reply when I noticed the name on the post.
We're counting down the days until you get home on leave!
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (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.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)
I was a flight instructor in the Navy during 9/11. Out at the smoke pit, just after, I was talking to some of my JO staff and students, and I told them (basically) the following:
What you guys are going to have to realize is that it's now a different world. For the first 4-5 years of my military career, it was all Cold War mentality. That affected the every decision made.
From about 1990 on, the US had a different mentality: We were the biggest, toughest ones on the block, but there wasn't any real strategic direction. That affected the decisions of our politicians and military, and we've been living with the effects ever since.
You guys, however, are only 1-2 years in your career, and you're going to have an entirely different way of looking at things. It'll be a lot easier to see things in an Us vs. Them mentality, but it'll also be a lot easier to take the shortcuts. You'll find people telling themselves that "it's okay...it's for the good of the country."
Sad to say, this thread justifies some of my concerns. It's not that the Guard or any other force fears (or doesn't) armed civilians...it's that they may think it's easier to just shoot the bastich than worry over constitutionality vs. some platoon leader yelling to fire.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
"The national guard does not fear my shotgun."
Sure about that? If Obama were to order the Army to go in and pacify Central PA, there would at least be desertions and possibly mutiny.
Or as a friend of mine says, when some smartypants pulls out the "what is your shotgun going to do against a tank?" question:
"They have to get out to take a piss sooner or later."
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
Just fine. Mission accomplished.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus they have the religeous fanaticism to stand against an overwhelming force that gives them the totally false hope of defeating us. Any sane group would have given up.
If they had invaded your country with an overwhelming force, would you have given up?
It doesn't take religious fanaticism to relentlessly resist an unwanted invader; a strong sense of principles and willingness to fight for them is all it takes. These traits are in ample supply in populations throughout the world.
Plus they don't have to "defeat you" they just have to sap your will to fight, and your homelands will to fund the fight for perpetuity. Since you have no real stake in being there; you WILL eventually be worn down; you WILL eventually leave.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
If Waco or Iraq is any model (*everyone* has an AK), then no, your shotgun isn't going to cut it ever. Your roadside bomb would be a different story. But I'm not going to learn how to make one "just in case".
The possibility of tyranny, however small, is why we should all support the EFF here. You fight the tyranny *before* it happens, through political means, so that you don't have to use that shotgun.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)
no, but they would fear a million people all with shotguns.
When most people have small arms, invading forces have a few choices no matter how good of armor or weapons the invaders:
1) take out the leader, and politically convince the followers
2) convince the leader, and hope the followers follow
3) Kill everyone
4) Lose
We see (again) in IRAQ that prolific small arms cannot be overcome be force alone, unless you decide to just kill everyone, and destroy most everything in the process.
IE technically we can kill everyone with superior fire power, but most of the things of value goes with them. Having a government over no people means no government.
It doesn't matter, if everyone has a shotgun, or a sub machine gun. If you can't take them alive one by one, then your going to need majority support. Without a decent projectile weapon, all they would need to enforce a entire population is a means of keeping a separation.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Gross oversimplification:
Both will restrict our rights across huge swaths of areas just in a proportionally different manner. The lesser of two evils increasingly looks like a third party vote or vote one party into the white house and the other into congress in the hopes that they spend more time bickering than doing anything..
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
Fixed that for you.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
... or vote one party into the white house and the other into congress in the hopes that they spend more time bickering than doing anything..
Like how it is now? Yeah, that's working out really well at the moment.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we're even that lucky. I'd give 1 in 10 odds that if Obama wins the election W doesn't step down.
Sound ridiculous? I hope it is. But with all the other crazy non-American stuff W has done...I can't discount it. He's proven time and again that he thinks he's immune to precedent and proper procedure. And that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more hindrances than blessings.
I'll bet it's been discussed as an option at least. I really don't put anything past this administration. W scares
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (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. [washingtonpost.com] 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. [msn.com] 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.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it backfired. Not only did it not succeed in removing him from office, the majority of Americans found it to be petty. Increasingly so as time wore on. Many Republicans these days will even admit it was a mistake. (Not the talking heads on the radio, to be sure; their job is to rile people up.)
The article you linked verifies my point (if you actually followed the conclusion). Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment. The Republicans all voted FOR them; they desperately wanted them to come to a vote so that they could paint the Democrats as vindictive morons more concerned with taking their revenge on a president they don't like than governing the nation. Who cast them into oblivion? Democrats. Because they knew it. When the party that SHOULD support something opposes it and the one that should do everything they can to kill it wants it to proceed, you know there's some nasty politics going on. From the Democrats' perspective, it is much more important to get a democratic president elected now than it was to try to impeach Bush then.
Personally I wish he had been removed from office, because I think Bush has clearly done illegal things that warrant it. I also realize that he would never have been removed; that it would have been an entirely symbolic gesture that would have ground the congress to a halt, further politicized the nation and even introduced renewed uncertainty into the outcome of this presidential election. Symbols can be important, but I tend to prefer results.
Sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on Slashdot.
If I went hunting with somebody I had been friends with for years and got shot in the face, I damn sure wouldn't assume it was malice on my friend's part. And if some asshats tried to make political hay out of it as if it was somehow anything more than an accident, I too would defend my friend. It has nothing to do with being terrified of him or his "boss," it has to do with not being a shitty friend.
He SHOULD feel bad that the accident that he obviously thinks nothing of turned into some sort of controversy and maligned his friend, and if he felt that calling a press conference to tell people to shut up about it would help in the least he's right to do it. I would. If you wouldn't, well, I certainly wouldn't want to be your friend.
There are plenty of problems with Bush, Cheney, Republicans and even government in general. Let's focus on them instead of trying to invent more on stupid bases.
Parent
Nixon (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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
In a revolution is it better to have guns, or to have the knowledge to make guns?
Freedom of speech is everything.
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)
Valid point.
I guess my point attempted to say that guns can't create knowledge, but knowledge can create guns.
In a revolution knowledge is easier to distribute too, and harder to take away.
Consider today's world, where knowledge has become weaponry of itself; where now is the difference between the two?
The suppression of one means the suppression of the other, does it not?
Parent
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
close but wrong (Score:3, Informative)
McCain voted for the FISA bill. And Barack also voted for the FISA bill.
Meanwhile, McCain supports your 2nd Amendment rights. Barack says he supports them but has voted and advocated against them several times in the past.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary and the congressional dems who voted for the war and continuing funding can go with him...
Parent
Contractual EFF Support Link! (Score:5, Informative)
Help us continue this fight: http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping [eff.org]
We've just opened a new page for student rates: http://www.eff.org/students [eff.org]
Third-party details on how EFF compares to other non-profit groups: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576 [charitynavigator.org]
(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)
The problem isn't George W Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:The problem isn't George W Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
49%? That's a great overestimate. I'd put it more around 4.9% of American understand those concepts.
Parent
Re:The problem isn't George W Bush (Score:5, Interesting)
And a large chunk of those who can verbalize what we fought for don't care so long as (1) They get sweet tax breaks or (2) The have nanny government take care of them every step along the way. Both sides are equally dangerous to freedom!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
In the world wars fighting for freedom DID mean going to other countries.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Unknown - attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
That could just as well apply to vigilance against tyrants and oppressors in other countries.
My point is that your post marginalizes
Re:The problem isn't George W Bush (Score:4, Funny)
If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is "poontang".
That's what you say now, but once they are blown off, you aren't gong to have any interest in it.
Parent
I don't see how... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:FISA? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure most slashdotters know how painful that is!
...
No. No, we do not. I don't know where you got your ideas of the typical slashdotter's sexual activities, but they scare me.
Parent