Lawmakers Delay Telco Immunity Vote

eweekhickins writes "The US Senate Judiciary Committee delayed a scheduled vote on whether telecommunications carriers should be granted immunity for cooperating with the White House's domestic spying program of telephone wiretapping and e-mail surveillance. The panel hopes to vote on the provision as soon as next week. Senator Pat Leahy said that immunity would make it impossible for Americans to seek redress for 'illegal' violations of their privacy." The article points out the confused state of the immunity measure: the House is considering a version of FISA renewal that has no immunity; in the Senate, two committees are working on different versions, one with immunity, one without.

Mum?!?

[iknownuttin]

FTFA: Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden all oppose granting immunity to the carriers.

Good for them!

Other Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have not stated a position on immunity for telecom carriers. Republican presidential hopefuls have also been mum on the issue.

You chicken shit sons (and daughter) - of - bitches!

Rule of Law.

[headkase]

If the telecoms are granted immunity by the government then the USA will no longer be under the rule of law. If it comes to pass, some people or organizations will be above the law and in my opinion that is not what the US should be about. What's next Bush, dictator for life?!?

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes its AT&T's fault just as much as the government's fault. AT&T has plenty of lawyers for these kinds of situations. One of the people involved could have gone to their legal department and found out if it was illegal to do this. The US Government can lock individuals away and silence them but its not quite as easy to silence one of the world's largest telecoms companies.

It should have been obvious that a spying program on this scale wouldn't stay secret too long.

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Don't Get It

[Wellington Grey]

Why would anyone vote for immunity for the telcos when we don't even know what they did wrong? Who in their right mind would excuse someone without knowing the crime?

-Grey [luminiferous-aether.net]

Re:Other side

[Dunbal]

People were hanged at Nuremburg despite saying "I was only following orders".

There comes a time where you have to do what's RIGHT, even if you have to go to jail for it.

Doesn't matter

[foreverdisillusioned]

Even if they aren't granted immunity, I can guarantee you that no one is going to be arrested. No one in a corporation is ever arrested, no matter how many white collar crimes they commit, unless those crimes directly affect the pocketbook of other white collar citizens (e.g. Enron). I realized this the day it came to light that Sony was installing rootkits on people's machines without their permission, and yet no one was even talking about arrests... and yet, if a fourteen year old was installing rootkits on thousands or millions of machines without their owners' permission, he would be arrested in a heartbeat and we'd be subjected to a month of scary and retarded Dateline specials on those evil hackers.

Similarly, if a fourteen year old phreaker records people's calls without their consent, he is arrested immediately. If a corporation does it, it at best merits a class-action lawsuit (which is the most we're going to see here... IF immunity isn't granted.) The fact that the corporations in this case were doing the bidding of the state certainly doesn't hurt them, but it's foolish to suppose to begin with that corporations are ever held to the same standard of justice as non-affiliated individuals.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Sique]

If it was legal, then we won't need a law to immunize the telcos against it, right? So what's the fuss about?

Re:Other side

[Jawnn]

Bullshit. The law is the law, and that law makes it pretty damn clear that spying on U.S. citizens, without first demonstrating to a judicial authority probable cause for the issue a warrant authorizing such spying, is wrong. Period. This being the case, a business, and/or those responsible for operating that business, is/are responsible for obeying this well-established law, REGARDLESS of who asked them to break it. Their answer SHOULD have been, "No warrant - no wiretap. Sorry."

Re:Other side

[rpillala]

The telecoms are in an awkward position (of their own making) for sure. The same people who said "help us or the terrorists win" aren't the ones who would see them prosecuted. The problem with your argument is that the government we have now is factionalized. While both factions operate under the same title of "US Government" they don't exercise their power in the same way. The executive branch seems to be taking the position of Nixon who famously said "If the President does it, it isn't illegal." They won't come out and say they're above the law, they'll change the law so that what they did can't be punished. If Congress weren't steadily selling out the people, the strategy wouldn't work. People complain about Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer, but really anyone from any party who supports this crap should be voted out. Republicans should be expected to do the right thing too.

And I think the answer to your question is "both."

Re:Stupid

[Skreech]

On the other hand, the people are responsible by tolerating a government that does things like this.

Re:Doesn't matter

[foreverdisillusioned]

Corporate executives are arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison are a regular basis.

Yes. Because they commit crimes against other executives, or the government, or their shareholders. As long as they DON'T cost these people money, they can get away with pretty much any non-violent, non-obviously-fraudulent crime against the public at large. They're occasionally caught and sued, or caught and fined, but almost never actually imprisoned.

Odd, isn't it ... ?

[Infonaut]

... that so many people need to be reminded of this:

In fact, that's why we got rid of the King in the first place, and replaced him with a three part government, each of which can check the other.

And odder still that so many people seem to crave a unitary executive, a king by another name. It seems too many Americans take their blessings for granted, and are willing to simply throw them away because it's too much effort to deal with the messiness of governing. Easier to have one guy in charge. That way the voter bears no responsibility, and everyone has a scapegoat when things go wrong. No need to look in the mirror. No need to read up on the issues, or send letters, or protest. Everyone can be smart and smug and self-righteous, while the unitary executive fucks us into the ground.