An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports that the FCC won't be investigating the phone record disclosures by communications companies under US government pressure. Despite a congressional request for that probe, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin quashed the inquiry based on comments from National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. 'At issue are reports last year that some big telephone companies allowed the U.S. government access to millions of telephone records for an antiterrorism program. The reports have prompted scrutiny by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, the chairman of a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee, asked Martin to investigate. Markey, of Massachusetts, said McConnell's stance was "unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program."'"
They're all frightened of being called soft on terror...
And why are they frightened about that? I'll tell you. Because average Joe and even some above average Joes are so much into fighting terrorism and feeling "strong" that they think anyone who "hides" behind the Constitution is a: wimp, terrorist, or some pinko pansy. There the same folks who see someone get acquitted and think "they beat the rap" - not that the individual was actually innocent. Civil Rights or the Bill of Rights to those people is some sort of hippy slogan. Which is interesting because, in my completely non-scientific observation, it seams that the older people are, the more they're inclined to have this opinion.
Economy - The flaw in your argument is the assumption that just because some are doing well that everyone is doing well. The bottom 2/3rds of Americans have been doing worse and worse since the 80's. This is directly related to the cutting of taxes on the wealthy and the conservative fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve.
War
Forked Tongue - OK Mr. Swiftboat man. Supporting the troops does not equate with sending them to their deaths.
Downsizing - Yes. After the Cold War was over we reduced the
You really need to understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a news source. He even claims so himself. He does not quite go so far as to say that he feeds off of nut jobs views like yours, but he has said that they are the reason he is so successful. All he has to do is imply some innuendo and people like yourself grab it and run all the way with it. He has said the truth does not matter, only opinion.
Why do you think that under the same rules of financial management, Bush Sr lost
I love it when posts get moderated up simply due to extensive formatting, when it's clear the moderators haven't actually read or considered the inane, ridiculous content.
Substitute Republican for Democrat in this rant and it is just as true. What is it going to take for people to realize BOTH parties are corrupt and only out for their own interests, not those of the average American?
Follow the money... who is making it... when Dems are in power it is friends of Dems... when Reps are in power it is friends of Reps who are reaping the profits. At what point does the average American's life improve?
If Congress can't exert any power in situations like this, what CAN it do?
They can, but they won't.
You make a mistake in thinking congress actually objects to the wholesale
stripping away of our privacy, to the war in Iraq, to all the crap they've scapegoated
Bush with for the last six years. What a great game! Last week you hated Bill, this
week you hate George, next week you hate Hillary, but we just keep going back to the
same used car dealership so one of them can rape us week after week after week...
Yes, few people in US history can come close to Bush for outright in-your-faceness
about how frequently they wipe their asses with the constitution. But we need
to avoid presuming that he has done anything new - He just lacks the saavy
to hide his abuses.
If congress so desired, they could end all this tomorrow. They could end the
war, they could end the spying programs, they could end our use of torture and
our continued illegal detainment of both foreigners and US citizens, they could
end Bush's presidency. They have that power. But they won't use
it, because they all want the same things that Bush does - Further consolidation
of power and money into their own families and friends.
The only part of domestic wiretapping they actually object to involves who
gets to listen. They want in on the action, and resent Bush keeping them
outside the loop.
Or, you could ask yourself. If this is the amount of stuff they've been unable to hide, how much have they actually succesfully hidden from you?
Bush may lack the savvy to hide his shady dealings, but much of his staff doesn't, don't presume you know half of it.
Tip of the iceberg syndrome, and the thing is... they're still managing to hide the tip! We know there's an iceberg, we know we're about to plow right into it, Titanic-style... but we can't actually see it.
Using the power of the purse to shutdown the war and domestic spying programs? Nope, their fingers are just as deep in those coffers.
Enacting new legislation to hold the myriad bells accountable for their violations of privacy in Fed Court? Nope, Repubs have the Supreme Court on lockdown now too.
.. Amdocs , an Israel company and has ALL records perfect for phone data mining. Great for the intelligence community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUXFHON_v9o [youtube.com]
Still want to have a SUBSCRIPTION service where they can know everything about you? I strongly recommend VoIP abroad or subscriptionless mobiles if you value your privacy.
Except the Israeli intelligence services are the most transparent in the world with regards to activity reports to their own government and population. Given how they report their own activities, they've been far more open than the CIA and NSA.
The simple fact is that talking on any phone, cellular in particular, is not private. If you think it is you are delluding yourself. As a comm tech in the 80's we routinely monitored voice traffic for amusement purposes. The things you hear are mind boggling! People talk on the phone about the most private and illegal things. Why oh why would anyone ever discuss something on an unsecure medium that they don't want anyone to know is beyond me. I remember years ago some congressional members cell call w
This complacency is the problem. We have the right to expect privacy to be the default. We have the right that it is respected except in the most grave of situations. Lots of things will still happen, people will be mugged. Should we just say, "you shouldn't have been out that late." You should have been fired and prosecuted for your "amusement." Your "amusement" is a lack of respect for others.
>You should have been fired and prosecuted for your "amusement." Your "amusement" is a lack of respect for others.
I don't disagree. It was wrong. Still and all.....privacy is an illusion. You can bitch all you want but the fact is that without some form of encryption there is no secure communications. From bored comm techs to overly enthusiastic FBI agents and NSA operatives, there is always someone listening. You can expect privacy but you aren't going to get it.
Last time I looked, the House and Senate had subpoena power. If they want to investigate what Bush administration has been up to with the telcos, they can simply haul the telcos, the administration officials, or both into a hearing and compel them to testify. A few contempt citations should clarify the issue of who did what and why rather quickly.
Maybe getting a formal refusal to investigate from the FCC is somehow a necessary preliminary to getting to the bottom of this nonsense. I hope so.
Come on folks let's move on this. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there are people out there who will be only to happy to testify in detail about what has been done and why and are just waiting for someone to ask..
National Security? Betcha not. Anyone with a very long memory will recall that the Nixon administration's first ploy in trying to elude Watergate was to invoke National Security. After that was laughed off, they switched to executive privilege. Have we learned nothing? The best way to deal with miscreants in high places is to expose the facts about what they have been doing to the light of day.
Last time I looked, the House and Senate had subpoena power....
A few contempt citations should clarify the issue...
From the way things are going, Bush would refuse to allow them to testify based on "executive privilege and the separation of powers". This would spend some time travelling up to the Supreme court - long enough to allow the very-short-attention-span congresscritters to forget. If the Supreme court did rule against Bush he could still tell his minions to refuse to testify and pardon them immediately on issue of contempt citations. Bingo, a congress that can do nothing.
even if the end result is that congress is powerless, make bush do it. make him do it all. make him prove to the american people the lengths he will go to to cover up what he's done to the citizens.
even if the end result is that congress is powerless, make bush do it. make him do it all. make him prove to the american people the lengths he will go to to cover up what he's done to the citizens.
He'd tell them he was doing it to protect them from the terrorists, and they'd thank him for it.
At which point Congress turns around and impeaches him, and THEN starts issuing citations again. If Cheney starts pulling the same, they impeach him, too.
"Talk to our guy over at NSA, the one you gave the special clearance to. I think those Dems might be up to something. Let's see who they've been talking to."
How much trust do you have for the average person on the street? Would you trust them to bring your lost wallet back to you with all the cash in it you had? The problem with Government, with Police, with anyone in power, is that they are humans, with all the same flaws as you and me, and then some. Many are nosey, greedy, and most of all, attracted to power and all that it entails. I'm not saying this is universal.
The question isn't "what am I trying to hide?" It's "why do you want to know?" Imbalance of k
Good luck with that. Congress requested the investigation. It still got blocked. Sure, we can vote out the politicians, but the bureaucracy will continue, regardless of which party happens to be in power.
What we NEED to do is purge the bureaucracy every decade or so. And not just the top few administrative types -- everyone. Bring new people and new ideas in at all levels.
Also, making it ridiculously easy to fire a government employee would help as well. I think they're moving the right direction with t
The problem will not be solved by replacing Republicans with Democrats. It will only change the rationale. Dems will probe for child molesters and music pirates instead of terrorists, but they're not going to loosen government's grip.
The problem will be solved when Americans finally ask, "How the fuck can government regulate our telephone lines when we have a First Ammendment?"
I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests. Getting the big money out of politics would be a very good thing, though I don't see any easy path to doing so... However, there is a difference in relative priorities, and it is clear that the neo-GOP is completely focused on the money, whereas the old GOP had and the Democrats still have some other principles as well.
Since it is very clear that privacy considerations have zero traction with the current American government, we basically have two options: Can we evolve in a more constructive direction (which means the neo-GOP must be removed first of all), or does there have to be a violent revolution? It seems very clear that certain governments (especially in Europe) are deliberately trying to evolve in the direction of favoring individual rights and privacy. If you believe that freedom and democracy confer competitive advantages, and if you think they are linked to such rights as privacy, then you must conclude that they are moving in a constructive and more competitive direction.
Revolution? Well, sometimes violent revolutions cannot be avoided. The problem there is that the outcome is never certain. On the average, the new systems are better than the old ones--but that's a big historical average, and there are plenty of times when things get worse before they get better. The one thing certain about a real revolution is that lots of people get hurt, even killed. I don't like that, and you can't convince me it's the only way to make things better. We're human beings, not mindless beasts that can only evolve mindlessly.
Me, I'd prefer to believe that just getting back to the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be a big step forward after the last few years. Some of the real Republicans might work for that, but not the neo-GOP politicians that still control what's left of the GOP.
>> Getting the big money out of politics would be a very good thing, though I don't see any easy path to doing so... To get the money out of politics, the best path is to cut taxes and limit governmental power.
Inevitably, many special interests want to petition the government for redress, and that's a pretty important right in itself. If we decide ahead of time who can lobby government and by what means, then it's self-defeating. It's the slippery slope down the "more regulation will produce more fre
To get the money out of politics, the best path is to [avoid concentration of wealth] and limit [concentration of] power.
Fixed that for you.
If you include ANY large organization in that sweeping statement (e.g., including corporations), then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, you're just another libertarian nutjob who believes in the Tooth Fairy and that an unregulated free market won't end up screwing over the poor.
The libertarian attitude toward compassion (and the emphasis on lack of it) is one of the rea
I feel like saying "just so" and ending, but I'll continue by noting that government does have a number of legitimate purposes. Most importantly, governments should set the rules and make sure that all of the players continue to play by the rules. Governments must also mediate between the public and private interest because there are *LOTS* of cases where they are not the same. The quasi-rational libertarians admit that, but they claim it can be addressed by more complete information. Just too bad no one (s
Removing the old useless cruft of the winner-takes-all voting system would be a good step towards break up the two party regime and introducing new dynamics.
Too bad this would undermine the power of the two big parties, so they have no interest in changing the status quo.
I basically agree with you. I think if the Founders had seen how it would work out, then they would have set up the kind of system that is used almost everywhere else in the world, where coalition governments are the norm. However, I'm doubtful that even coalition governments are the complete solution, because the real issues are more fluid than that. In a sense, we're seeing competition between the various governmental systems. One of the characteristics of the American system is that the winner take all dy
I strongly agree with you that both parties are broken. Voting between corrupt choice "A" and corrupt choice "B" is not democracy. But the thing that will get the fastest most bipartisan government action is anything one to actually trys to return some real power and control to the people. I read a very interesting story the other day about someone who is facing prison time for trying to get a referendum on the Oklahoma ballot. "If anyone thinking of getting involved as a citizen in the process has to facto
A big part of this debate has to do with many factors. 1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there). 2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy. 3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security. 4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
The first issue we'll just not discuss, since it's really irrelevant in the overall discussion. Basically, if your decision to NOT allow thi
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there).
Admitted freely, but irrelevant to this particular issue.
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
Absolutely not. Period.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
Ideally, none. In practice, we already have a system of legal hoops to jump through
to allow a carefully controlled, specifically targetted loss of privacy when
ove
the telco has the right to use that information as they wish
Wrong! Just because you agreed to their terms of service does not mean you should not expect privacy from them. This is simply hogwash. They have only the right use that information in the process of billing you.
Whether Clinton's executive order is right or not, is relevant, but in the current circumstances, the current administration is so far over the top in these matters, it is imperative to our survival as a democratic society to know the e
So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
Sorry, you're wrong. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers
a more respectable organization can perform a thorough, honest investigation.
True, so maybe we could hire a respectable foreign intelligence service. There are several good ones available (MI6, the Mossad, etc.) but I'd recommend the Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki. Sure, why not use the SVR... let's ask our Russian friends for help in this matter. I mean, Russia could use the money, and the SVR is a top-notch intelligence service, so I'm sure they'll get the job done very efficiently. We might find ourselves
No. Your statement was opinion derived from ignorance. It is not rational to claim a diminished basis strengthens the derivative.
Investigative responsibility depends on structure and laws. The FCC, like many other large entities, has its own internal investigations group. That's the appropriate place for an investigation to start from cost and familiarity aspects. That was true of the Bill Clinton ATF just as it is true of the George Bush FCC.
oops typo (Score:4, Insightful)
Should read "unsurprising given that this administration is aware that the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of spineless pussies".
There you go.
Re:Republicans also (Score:4, Insightful)
And why are they frightened about that? I'll tell you. Because average Joe and even some above average Joes are so much into fighting terrorism and feeling "strong" that they think anyone who "hides" behind the Constitution is a: wimp, terrorist, or some pinko pansy. There the same folks who see someone get acquitted and think "they beat the rap" - not that the individual was actually innocent. Civil Rights or the Bill of Rights to those people is some sort of hippy slogan. Which is interesting because, in my completely non-scientific observation, it seams that the older people are, the more they're inclined to have this opinion.
Many of my fellow Americans disgust me.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a news source. He even claims so himself. He does not quite go so far as to say that he feeds off of nut jobs views like yours, but he has said that they are the reason he is so successful. All he has to do is imply some innuendo and people like yourself grab it and run all the way with it. He has said the truth does not matter, only opinion.
Why do you think that under the same rules of financial management, Bush Sr lost
Formatting, +5 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow the money... who is making it... when Dems are in power it is friends of Dems... when Reps are in power it is friends of Reps who are reaping the profits. At what point does the average American's life improve?
So what is Congress good for? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what is Congress good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
They can, but they won't.
You make a mistake in thinking congress actually objects to the wholesale stripping away of our privacy, to the war in Iraq, to all the crap they've scapegoated Bush with for the last six years. What a great game! Last week you hated Bill, this week you hate George, next week you hate Hillary, but we just keep going back to the same used car dealership so one of them can rape us week after week after week...
Yes, few people in US history can come close to Bush for outright in-your-faceness about how frequently they wipe their asses with the constitution. But we need to avoid presuming that he has done anything new - He just lacks the saavy to hide his abuses.
If congress so desired, they could end all this tomorrow. They could end the war, they could end the spying programs, they could end our use of torture and our continued illegal detainment of both foreigners and US citizens, they could end Bush's presidency. They have that power. But they won't use it, because they all want the same things that Bush does - Further consolidation of power and money into their own families and friends.
The only part of domestic wiretapping they actually object to involves who gets to listen. They want in on the action, and resent Bush keeping them outside the loop.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
America's phone records are handled by.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also unsurprisingly (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such thing as private communications (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There is no such thing as private communication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't disagree. It was wrong. Still and all.....privacy is an illusion. You can bitch all you want but the fact is that without some form of encryption there is no secure communications. From bored comm techs to overly enthusiastic FBI agents and NSA operatives, there is always someone listening. You can expect privacy but you aren't going to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe getting a formal refusal to investigate from the FCC is somehow a necessary preliminary to getting to the bottom of this nonsense. I hope so.
Come on folks let's move on this. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there are people out there who will be only to happy to testify in detail about what has been done and why and are just waiting for someone to ask. .
National Security? Betcha not. Anyone with a very long memory will recall that the Nixon administration's first ploy in trying to elude Watergate was to invoke National Security. After that was laughed off, they switched to executive privilege. Have we learned nothing? The best way to deal with miscreants in high places is to expose the facts about what they have been doing to the light of day.
Re:What's the Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the way things are going, Bush would refuse to allow them to testify based on "executive privilege and the separation of powers". This would spend some time travelling up to the Supreme court - long enough to allow the very-short-attention-span congresscritters to forget. If the Supreme court did rule against Bush he could still tell his minions to refuse to testify and pardon them immediately on issue of contempt citations. Bingo, a congress that can do nothing.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He'd tell them he was doing it to protect them from the terrorists, and they'd thank him for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that they will do any of it.
But that's neither here nor there.
How could anyone be opposed to this investigation? (Score:2)
"Hehe, Rovey..." (Score:2)
Department: "keeping America safe from nipples"? (Score:2)
power balance (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is long overdue that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, we can vote out the politicians, but the bureaucracy will continue, regardless of which party happens to be in power.
What we NEED to do is purge the bureaucracy every decade or so. And not just the top few administrative types -- everyone. Bring new people and new ideas in at all levels.
Also, making it ridiculously easy to fire a government employee would help as well. I think they're moving the right direction with t
Re:Possession is still 9 points of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem will be solved when Americans finally ask, "How the fuck can government regulate our telephone lines when we have a First Ammendment?"
Parent
Re:Possession is still 9 points of the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it is very clear that privacy considerations have zero traction with the current American government, we basically have two options: Can we evolve in a more constructive direction (which means the neo-GOP must be removed first of all), or does there have to be a violent revolution? It seems very clear that certain governments (especially in Europe) are deliberately trying to evolve in the direction of favoring individual rights and privacy. If you believe that freedom and democracy confer competitive advantages, and if you think they are linked to such rights as privacy, then you must conclude that they are moving in a constructive and more competitive direction.
Revolution? Well, sometimes violent revolutions cannot be avoided. The problem there is that the outcome is never certain. On the average, the new systems are better than the old ones--but that's a big historical average, and there are plenty of times when things get worse before they get better. The one thing certain about a real revolution is that lots of people get hurt, even killed. I don't like that, and you can't convince me it's the only way to make things better. We're human beings, not mindless beasts that can only evolve mindlessly.
Me, I'd prefer to believe that just getting back to the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be a big step forward after the last few years. Some of the real Republicans might work for that, but not the neo-GOP politicians that still control what's left of the GOP.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
To get the money out of politics, the best path is to cut taxes and limit governmental power.
Inevitably, many special interests want to petition the government for redress, and that's a pretty important right in itself. If we decide ahead of time who can lobby government and by what means, then it's self-defeating. It's the slippery slope down the "more regulation will produce more fre
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
If you include ANY large organization in that sweeping statement (e.g., including corporations), then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, you're just another libertarian nutjob who believes in the Tooth Fairy and that an unregulated free market won't end up screwing over the poor.
The libertarian attitude toward compassion (and the emphasis on lack of it) is one of the rea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Changing the voting system (Score:2)
Too bad this would undermine the power of the two big parties, so they have no interest in changing the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense, we're seeing competition between the various governmental systems. One of the characteristics of the American system is that the winner take all dy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there).
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
The first issue we'll just not discuss, since it's really irrelevant in the overall discussion. Basically, if your decision to NOT allow thi
Re: (Score:2)
Admitted freely, but irrelevant to this particular issue.
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
Absolutely not. Period.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
Ideally, none. In practice, we already have a system of legal hoops to jump through to allow a carefully controlled, specifically targetted loss of privacy when ove
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the telco has the right to use that information as they wish
Wrong! Just because you agreed to their terms of service does not mean you should not expect privacy from them. This is simply hogwash. They have only the right use that information in the process of billing you.
Whether Clinton's executive order is right or not, is relevant, but in the current circumstances, the current administration is so far over the top in these matters, it is imperative to our survival as a democratic society to know the e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, you're wrong. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html [cornell.edu]
Here, allow me to quote.
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers
Re: (Score:2)
True, so maybe we could hire a respectable foreign intelligence service. There are several good ones available (MI6, the Mossad, etc.) but I'd recommend the Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki. Sure, why not use the SVR
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC is in WHICH branch of the Federal government? By definition it's usually going to follow the desires of its boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Investigative responsibility depends on structure and laws. The FCC, like many other large entities, has its own internal investigations group. That's the appropriate place for an investigation to start from cost and familiarity aspects. That was true of the Bill Clinton ATF just as it is true of the George Bush FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think this is a democrat/republican iss (Score:2)