Retroactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data

quanticle writes "The government has proposed giving retroactive immunity to telephone companies for giving personal data to the government, even if such requests are later found to be illegal."

I welcome

[EEPROMS]

I too welcome our new United Soviet States of America fascist overlords

Re:I welcome

[dreamchaser]

In a Fascist system the State controls Corporations. Here it's the other way around most of the time. We have a Corporate Republic now, though the end result with regards to our civil liberties is the same.

Everything I need to know I learned from Civ: CTP

[FooAtWFU]

Have we got Mass Media? Check. Have we got the technology for GlobeNet?
Sure! Let's check this out, I guess:

"The Corporate Republic utilizes knowledge of the market place and economics
to produce the greatest gold of any large empire. This government utilizes
orbital communications to communicate its far-flung franchises."

"Facism rules with cruelty and lies, turning patriots into monsters while
building a war machine unmatched for any medium empire. Facism is the only
government to allow the Facist unit."

A comparison:
                       Facism     Corp. Republic
              Growth:  Average        Good
          Production:  Good           Good
             Science:  Average        Good
                Gold:  Bad            Good
            Military:  Excellent      Average
           Pollution:  Average        Awful
Max Science Spending:  70%            60%

Re:Everything I need to know I learned from Civ: C

[shaitand]

'Science: Average Good'

Historically Facism produces excellent science. Just look at Germany. During their short term under Hitler they developed the technologies that are the bedrock of all our modern technology. If you count all the scientists that were born of that period they get even more credit.

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You don't actually know anything about fascism, do you? Have you even read the Wikipedia entry on fascism? You should, it's reasonably good.

Note: if you say in a fascist system the state controls corporations, it's roughly equivalent to saying that black is white. Literally, you've got it backwards.

Re:

[shutdown -p now]

You don't know much about fascism either, do you? You've probably seen it also called "corporatism", and decided that it equates to the "rule of corporations". Well, it doesn't - and the "corporations to which the original fascist term "corporatism" refers are not like what we call "corporations" today at all. The closest that would come to a fascist corporation would be a medieval guild.

Setting that aside, GP was actually right. In a fascist state, the state is above the corporations, not the other way a

Re:

[tsm_sf]

You don't actually know anything about X, do you? Have you even read the Wikipedia entry on X?

I've seen that line in one form or another for a little bit now, and I just have to say it's not a very compelling way to start your argument.

Re:

[DMNT]

Let me quote Benito Mussolini [wikipedia.org]:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" [thinkexist.com]

Please don't...

[msauve]

bring the United States of America into this.

The US has a Constitution which says that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This is about a corrupt administration which feels it is above the law.

Re:Please don't...

[ari_j]

How does this story relate to bills of attainder [wikipedia.org] or ex post facto laws [wikipedia.org]?

Re:

[HUADPE]

"An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law." -Wikipedia.

Retroactive immunity is an ex post facto law. Thus it is unconstitutional.

Re:

[ari_j]

The courts have held since at least 1798 [wikipedia.org] that the constitutional restriction on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal laws. The Constitutional Dictionary [usconstitution.net] has some more specifics.

Our Constitution...

[msauve]

was written for a populist government. Words mean things, and an "ex post facto" (latin for "after the fact") law is one which changes the legal consequences of a past event. It's clear, unambiguous language.

Having said that, I'm aware that there are many examples where the courts have made rulings which plainly and directly contradict the clear meaning of the words. is a particularly disingenuous one - it found that growing crops for personal use was "interstate commerce," and has become the basis for ra [umkc.edu]

Re:

[ari_j]

Words have both denotations and connotations. Their meanings also change with context. I am fairly willing to trust very intelligent, well-educated people who were alive and using a word when it was written to tell me what it means. Just because you can look a word up in a dictionary (be it the 2007 English dictionary or a classical Latin lexicon) does not mean that you can discern its precise meaning in a given use. While I agree that Wickard was probably not the best case, it was also decided quite a

Re:

[msauve]

"Ex post facto" is a simple rule which implements an expectation of fairness from the law. Just as people don't believe it is fair to "change the rules in the middle of the game" in regard to sports, so too is there a similar expectation for the law. "No ex post facto" is just an expression of that reasonable and logical expectation of fairness.

As can be seen from the other comments here, people expect the law in effect at the time of an action to be applied, and changing the law (especially to deliberatel

Re:

[ari_j]

I am referring to the common law [wikipedia.org] system, not the substantive common law of England as adopted into most American colonies at the time of independence. If judges cannot fill in the gaps in existing law and apply the gap-fillers to the cases before them, then the common law system cannot continue to exist. Does that clarify what I meant enough to allow you to respond to the point that I made?

In answer to your point...

[msauve]

The prohibition bears on Congress (being part of Article I, "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and the states (Sec 10, "No State shall...pass any...ex post facto Law"), and does not preclude the Judiciary from ruling based on common law. The Judiciary does not "pass" laws.

Re:

[ari_j]

Fair enough. What stops Congress from passing a resolution that declares it to be the public policy of the nation that phone companies not be liable for unlawfully giving the government private information, persuading many courts to refuse to permit such lawsuits? Where exactly is the line? Moreover, what part of section 10 permits state courts to continue their common law traditions? Is it the verb "pass"?

Re:

[msauve]

The Constitution requires the Executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," so such a resolution (stating policy to be to not enforce particular laws) could have no effect - it is nonsensical. Furthermore, it is not within Congress's power to direct either the Executive or the Judicial in how to perform their duties.

Point to where the Constitution grants the Gov't the power to make resolutions with the effect of law which aren't law, please. If it actually had the force of law, it would

Re:

[ari_j]

I won't go into all the decisions throughout the history of common law that created new law, as they are myriad and fundamental to our society. And I never said that Congress could pass a resolution with the force of law. I just said that it could state the public policy of the country and the courts could elect not to permit lawsuits against phone companies in these cases. Is there some particular law that permits such lawsuits? If so, is it one that Congress can't repeal retroactively? If so, why can

Re:

[Qzukk]

President can issue pardons

It's also been ruled that accepting a pardon is a declaration of guilt, meaning that the pardon doesn't change the status of the crime.

You're wrong...

[msauve]

it is truly amazing how people who haven't read the Constitution feel able to comment on what it says.

Article II, Sec 2: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."

The President has no power to pardon one party in a civil action. In the situation at hand, the offence is by ATT against their customers. Neither is "the United States."

Re:

[ari_j]

By and large, Congress can retroactively make behavior non-criminal, as far as I know. But even if they can't, the President could probably just give them a blanket pardon.

Re:

[edward2020]

Not really. According to Blacks Law Dictionary (and you've got to admit that this is a better source for US jurisprudence definitions than wikipedia),

ex post facto law. A law that impermissibly applies retroactively, esp. in a way that negatively affects a person's rights, as by criminalizaing an action that was legal when it was committed. Ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. But retrospective civil laws may be allowed.

And since immunity is not negative, I very much d

Re:

[edward2020]

Also, bills of attainder have nothing to do with this either. Here is the Black's Law Dictionary definition,

bill of attainder. 1. Archaic. A special legislative act that imposes a death sentence on a person without a trial. 2. A special legislative act prescribing punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group. Bills of attainder are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. -- Also termed act of attainder

And, once again, immunity is not punishment.

Re:

[644bd346996]

The problem is that immunity is a good thing for the corporations, but a very negative thing for the victims of the crime, namely everybody else in the nation. The definition you provide doesn't seem to specify who's rights have to be affected negatively, so it would seem that the constitutional question is still very much open.

On the other hand, the ethical issue is clear cut: retroactively granting immunity to corporations who assisted a corrupt government in illegally spying on their citizens is a Bad Th

Re:

[edward2020]

Of course its a negative thing for most everyone in the nation. However, it does not follow that it is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws. One, the definitions states that retroactive civil laws may be allowed. Two, I don't think that my first point really even matters, because the direction of the negative affect on rights is to the subject of the legislation. In this case that would be the telcos - and this of course certainly does not negatively affect them.

Re:

[shaitand]

There is a more important right granted in the constitution that bears directly on stopping corruptions of government. It recognizes that a corrupt government can not be punished under the law because it is able to corrupt the law.

The right in question is the right to bear arms. Hopefully we haven't let that be dilluted to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore.

Re:

[mpe]

The US has a Constitution which says that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
This is about a corrupt administration which feels it is above the law.

Also it's unclear how they could prevent such a prosecution, especially when they are out of power.

Misinformation

[WK2]

You have been misinformed, Anonymous Coward. We here in the US do not elect who we want into office. We are presented with two candidates, one placed by a big, greedy company (of sorts), and the other placed by a different big, greedy, company. We have the choice between a turd and a douche bag. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd [wikipedia.org]

As for the GP post, he was referring to the United States Constitution declaring that it defines what America is, and what the politicians can do.

Retro-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Retroactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data

So it's legal for companies to share my data, but not for me to share theirs?

Correct

[Mateo_LeFou]

unless Gonzalez certifies that your sharing it "is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack" You remember Gonzalez, right?

I guess ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... this is as close as we'll ever get to having a time machine. I need one for my parking tickets. ;-)

"Government and Business sitting in a tree, P-L-O-T-I-N-G"

Re:

[WrongSizeGlass]

D'oh! My spell check didn't catch it so it's obviously my computer's fault. Stupid computer.

Bad idea

[ari_j]

What the government should do instead is require itself to indemnify phone companies for any judgments entered against them as a result of complying with the government's illegal requests.

Re:

[bsane]

Why should it do that? These companies freely gave information when they knew it was illegal to do so. The blame here rests almost solely on the phone companies, they knew the law, they broke the law.

Certain branches of government asking* for the information without warrents is pretty sleazy, but net illegal (that I know of).

*whether or not they just asked or tried to blackmail remains to be seen, but the fact is several companies refused to give up the information.

Re:

[ari_j]

In the event that the government is more forceful, then indemnification is appropriate. If they're just asking the the phone companies are breaking the law, then it is probably not necessary (but it's at least marginally more appropriate than immunity).

Re:

[bsane]

I agree that its illegal and unconstitutional to search or sieze (and I agree that phone records and conversations qualify for that protection).

What I said though is that I dont think its illegal to *ask* for the records, the fact is that some phone companies gave the information willingly and thats why they should be held accountable.

What should happen is impeachment of Cheney and Jr

[Futurepower(R)]

The Bush administration is so corrupt that it is difficult for one person even to summarize all the corruption. But I tried: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy [futurepower.org]

Re:

[ari_j]

I can't impeach either one of them. You may want to talk to the House of Representatives about this.

Heat collapses are not symmetrical, leave big...

[Futurepower(R)]

Do you have a Physics background? I do, and I say that 3 extremely strongly built buildings falling symmetrically into piles of dust and small pieces cannot be explained by weakened support beams.

Such a collapse has never happened before or since in the history of the world, even when the top of a building burned for many hours.

I did NOT say the "administration" planned the World Trade Center building collapses. I only think that it was not a collapse due to heat. If there were a collapse due to heat,

Re:

[jamstar7]

What the government should do instead is require itself to indemnify phone companies for any judgments entered against them as a result of complying with the government's illegal requests.

You refering to a government bailout of the phone companies if they get sued?????????

Why should my tax dollars be dumped into a company to better their bottom line just because somebody lawfully sued them and won? They don't wanna get sued by the citizens they provide a service for, they should tell the government to g

Re:

[ari_j]

I agree that that is what the phone companies should do, but I was speaking only in terms of what the government should do if it wants to protect phone companies from such lawsuits. Your tax dollars should be dumped into a company to indemnify it from lawsuits (I don't see how this helps the phone company's bottom line any more than non-fraudulent insurance claims when your house burns down put you into a mansion) that your elected government pushed the company into, because the whole thing was (at least,

Re:

[Qzukk]

what the government should do if it wants to protect phone companies from such lawsuits

Naturally, the idea that maybe they shouldn't illegally demand customer information without a warrant never enters the picture.

Ah, no ...

[the bluebrain]

... you see, this is impossible. Impossible, due to the separation of powers. It's obviously the executive branch of government that is requesting the data, and the legislative that would be able to grant immunity. And it anything goes wrong, the judicative can be called upon, by any involved party. Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances.

It's the magic of the system, as written down on a just piece of paper.

Re:Ah, no ...

[Zeinfeld]

... you see, this is impossible. Impossible, due to the separation of powers. It's obviously the executive branch of government that is requesting the data, and the legislative that would be able to grant immunity.

Quite, the story is incorrect. The Bush administration is making the proposal. Congress is not going to pass it. So the proposal means no more than a flame on Slashdot does, probably less.

Bush could use his pardon power but that would mean admitting the original illegality and the right of Congress to control the actions of the President. Under the 'unitary executive' theory the administration has been pushing the President has permanent dictatorial powers and can break any law he chooses.

Given that the Attorney General is facing impeachment for obstruction of justice, lying to Congress and facilitating the corruption of at least ten Republicans in Congress, it does not look very likely that Congress is going to give Bush additional powers at this time. More likely they add illegal wiretapping to the Gonzalez impeachment charges.

Yeah, but...

[Jeff Molby]

Quite, the story is incorrect. The Bush administration is making the proposal. Congress is not going to pass it./blockquote. ...the last congress would have rubber stamped it. I'm no Democrat, but I'm glad they have at least a little power these days.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Given that the Attorney General is facing impeachment for obstruction of justice, lying to Congress and facilitating the corruption of at least ten Republicans in Congress, it does not look very likely that Congress is going to give Bush additional powers at this time. More likely they add illegal wiretapping to the Gonzalez impeachment charges.

Well, I guess the President will need that pardon power after all.

Re:

[failure-man]

Shrubby can't pardon an impeachment, and thus give him his job back.

He can, however, keep Gonzales out of jail so he can receive his $35M retirement job doing nothing on the board of a telco . . . . . .

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's the magic of the system, as written down on a just piece of paper."

But our leaders think its just a piece of paper.

Re:

[Tuoqui]

WTB a new teeter-totter, the one the US has right now isnt checking or balancing properly!

Re:

[deblau]

Ahem. Congress makes laws, the President enforces them. If the President decides not to enforce the laws, there isn't a thing Congress can do, other than impeach. The President has just proposed not following a law. You do the arithmetic.

Also, the President doesn't believe in separation of powers, he believes in his absolute authority as dictator. After all, to him the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper [capitolhillblue.com].

Not surprising

[vivaoporto]

With the election day coming, there is no doubt that a lot of retroactive immunities, pardons and whatnot will be signed just before Bush leaves. Were the Rep. sure that they would get the office again, they could do it furtively a la George Ford pardoning Nixon. But as the Dems, odds to win seems to be way higher, they must to act very fast and be sure to shred every piece of evidence. Just look at the whole house of cards falling, Gonzales, Wolfovitz, Rove, Libby, etc.

Re:

[Esion Modnar]

they could do it furtively a la George Ford pardoning Nixon

Was that Gerald's brother? Right nice of him to do that...

Re:

[vivaoporto]

Hah, ok! It is a sign that you didn't ingested your morning mandatory caffeine levels when you make such silly mistakes like these :D Thanks.

Come to Canada

[CriminalNerd]

Come to Canada, where the government is too stupid to do anything.

Re:

[Stevecrox]

No, no, no Come to the UK sure every single moment of your life is probably on a camera but no one is watching, because of that babe on screen three, even if they are nothing will happen as the government spawns anouther think tank to deal with something that wasn't really an issue.

Re:

[FudRucker]

i am tempted to move to Canada, i rather have a stupid & docile government than a schizo/paranoid government that panders to corporate greed while squashing the constitution & rights of the people...

Re:

[Dunbal]

a schizo/paranoid government that panders to corporate greed while squashing the constitution & rights of the people...

From the government: What constitution? What rights? Oops sorry, that news was supposed to be leaked next month.

Too Stupid?

[neoform]

Why exactly is it stupid for the government to not do much (in terms of change) ?

Seems to me the whole political process SHOULD be slow in order to stop individual administrations from making massively sweeping reforms that undo centuries of hard work..

Re:

[smchris]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Years ago I used to skim the U.S. Federal Register and our State Register of legislative activity as part of my job. The proposed stuff that didn't get out of committee would send chills through your veins. Considering what actually gets passed these days the stuff in the muck pile of Committee must be amazing.

Pardon my French: Dear government, fuck off

[pla]

The government has proposed giving retroactive immunity to telephone companies for giving personal data to the government

Complete and utter BS, but not necessarily relevant - You can't measure the "damages" of phone companies "sharing" info in simple dollars. So, I have a question for the idiots supporting this: Can the government retroactively take away all the bad PR for the companies that sold us out?

Simple example, I will not ever use Verizon again. Not for phone, not for DSL, not for (the much bigger reason they should care) the T1 at my place of employment. And, as a fairly respected geek among my family and peers, I strongly encourage those who ask my advice to do the same (to date, Verizon has lost at least eight (A)DSL customers, two T1s, and two SDSL loops for which I can personally take credit). Do I seriously think that hurt them enough to make a difference? Certainly not just my recommendations, but given enough people like me - Well, I note with some glee that Verizon has strangely decided to divest themselves of the Northeast...



So, unless the government can also erase our memories, "immunity" won't save those businesses who chose to betray their customers. And corporate America damned well better start hearing that message if they want to stay in business.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a different approach to solve this problem. Got me a VPN through an anonymity service. One that wasn't in the US, with off shore servers... http://www.metropipe.net/ [metropipe.net]

Re:

[ms1234]

So, unless the government can also erase our memories, "immunity" won't save those businesses who chose to betray their customers. And corporate America damned well better start hearing that message if they want to stay in business.

Don't worry, people have short memories... Ooo, look, shiny thingie.

Re:

[Jasin Natael]

I agree. I feel the same way about AT&T, after the wiretapping debacle. I can't have an iPhone, and will have to just do without -- or buy a shitty second-rate Chinese knockoff. See? It won't just hurt Verizon and AT&T; Hopefully, these shenanigans will hurt other businesses that choose to have contractual arrangements with them. I wonder if the company doing Verizon's FIOS phone is happy about their business practices. It can only accelerate their demise when they can't get exclusive rights t

re: PR

[Jeff Molby]

Can the government retroactively take away all the bad PR for the companies that sold us out?

Yes, just publicly declare them "patriots". Maybe even give their CEOs a shiny metal. CNN will air and people will pay at least as much attention to that as they did the original story.

Re:

[smchris]

Monopoly, and effective monopoly, issues aside, which corporations _are_ the good guys?

I had a fantastic experience with IBM as a home OS/2 user. I was only a support subscriber for one year but when OS/2 was discontinued, about a year after I let my support lapse, they sent me a multi-CD set of cumulative updates gratis. Tell me the last time Microsoft discontinued an OS and they sent you a cumulative updates CD set as part of their customer satisfaction program.

Now go to the /. home page and scroll down

Re:

[jZnat]

The only "good" corporations are ones controlled by good people without the influence of share-whores you have with public corporations. Generally, this means that most "good" corporations are very small businesses where pretty much everyone in the business is good. Have fun trying to find one...

EFF's lawsuit: $10,000 per violation = $Billions

[geekotourist]

The single biggest reason for this attempted change is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T [eff.org].

While $10,000 per violation-- the fine set in federal law-- isn't all of the damages, it certainly adds up to more than AT&T is worth: it could easily run into 100's of billions of dollars.

The EFF started this lawsuit 15 months ago, and is going up against organizations which have 100 times more lawyers than the EFF does. The EFF is a member supported organization [eff.org]. (What, you think they

Also a way to admit guilt

[Opportunist]

Because, well, what would this law be good for if the telcos didn't already hand over all kind of information illegally and in blatant violation of any privacy laws?

This isn't about the past......

[budword]

This is about being able to get that data in the future too. The government knows that if they want the telcos to just hand over your info in the future, they have to make sure the telcos past actions don't cost them in court. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the only way to be sure it doesn't happen again is to make sure it costs those bastards a boat load of cash, which no longer seems likely. Some "get pounded in the ass" prison time would help too, for the CEO types who had to sign off on this bullshit, but that is even less likely. The US doesn't have much in common with the Constitution anymore.

I bet Nixon would feel really dumb now

[Opportunist]

All he had to do is making snooping legal if there's some way to mask it as the "fight against communism". And since those red bellied Dems are half way to communism anyway...

Why does everyone seemingly accept any kind of illegal action as long as it can somehow be called the "fight against terror"? Why do people accept this kind of BS from the people who allegedly work FOR them?

Politicians are our employees. We put them there. If they don't work as intended, fire them!

Re:I bet Nixon would feel really dumb now

[Timesprout]

Why does everyone seemingly accept any kind of illegal action as long as it can somehow be called the "fight against terror"? Why do people accept this kind of BS from the people who allegedly work FOR them?

Its because in the last century these tactics have been shown to be incredibly effective in achieving almost total control over the populace. Stalin and Hitler showed you could invent some fictious and terrible enemy to coerce the population into allowing you to create massive internal surveillance systems, gulags for dissenters, private armies out side the military, to suppress 'treasonous' dissent, to control the media, and by the time the duplicity was realised, they had so much power it was impossible to challenge them.

The US has been at this for years albeit in a milder form than recent times. For example Mr Rumsfeld has been a leading fear mongering hysteric re the evil Soviets who were gagging to kill us all with their 'bomber gap' with which they planned to carpet bomb the US, then it was a 'missile gap' with which they planned to nuke the US into the stone, then multitudes of tanks that were going to steamroller through Europe etc. End result was the US had vastly more bombers and missiles than the Soviets, so there actually was a gap, just not the one you were led to believe.

Mr Rumsfeld and his fellow hawks were clearly resourceful men because despite the evil terror of the Soviet Union rather inconveniently collapsing on them they quickly recovered the situstion with the vast global terror network that is Al Quaida. Unfortunately with the ascention of Al Quaida to public enemy no 1 there also seems to be a greater willingness to remove civil rights and liberties.

Re:I bet Nixon would feel really dumb now

[Dunbal]

Politicians are our employees. We put them there. If they don't work as intended, fire them!

      I hate to be a traditionalist, but setting them on fire might achieve a better and faster result.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Certainly, but crying "witch!" doesn't really work anymore. Well, at least not against politicians, usually they're the one crying "witch!" (or communist, terrorist...) now.

It's only fair and right!

[erroneus]

A lesson for us all! When you help the Gestapo, the Gestapo will help you.

Re:

[Mr. Shotgun]

That is true only if the Gestapo thinks it has further use for you.
If not, they will not hesitate to leave you hanging in the wind [msn.com].

Re:

[jamstar7]

That is true only if the Gestapo thinks it has further use for you.
If not, they will not hesitate to leave you hanging in the wind.

Libby will do a year or two at a country club, scam a parole, get pardoned by a future administration, and get a talk show just like Ollie North. The Powers That Be reward their minions who take one for the Team. It's just that the rewards come down the line, when all the uproar stops.

Privacy? What Privacy?

[postbigbang]

Still another rationalization and legal blow to liberty: searches without warrants, no probable cause, and it won't cease here. You're already stripped visually at airports, your personal data in relationship to the government made public, and there seems little that can be done to stop it. Perhaps a new breed of patriot might overthrow King George. No- wait, please don't mind this posting and start sending Treasury Agents to my door.... really-- I'm not a seditionist.

Re:

[I_Voter]

IMO: The separation of powers only slows things down. All three branches can agree on one thing - those pesky citizens get in the way, and cause problems.

While I will accept that the SOP structure slows down radical change, it doesn't stop change. We should remember that it works both ways! People standing on a steep hill of tar will be less likely to slide down, but if they do slide down then getting back up is harder.

The following is my favorite example of slow but radical "constitutional" change.

Re:

[postbigbang]

Your citations were great. I really enjoyed them.

Now, up against the wall, mother fletcher. You and I are both now in a database somewhere.

Good luck and best of lawyers.

Re:

[Qzukk]

You and I are both now in a database somewhere.

The database of people who will never be called for jury duty ;)

Misread

[nickspoon]

Radioactive Immunity Proposed for Telcos Who Share Private Data Does that mean that the Telcos will be the only ones left when the revolution comes? A world ruled by Telcos, a scary thought. "Hello, would you like to switch to our new democracy plan? The voting machines won't work unless it's the third Sunday of the year, but you get free evenings and weekends!"

Cue the line from Star Wars

[ip_freely_2000]

"I will make it legal"

Re:

[OnlineAlias]

These are not the telcos you are looking for....

How to explain it?

[nickmalthus]

I wonder how the executive branch will attempt to sell this to Congress? "The Telcos performed illegal acts because we told them to"?

Also it is worth noting that the Bush administration started domestically spying before 9/11 [truthout.org] and we all know how well the government used it's resources to prevent the "attacks".

History Never Repeats

[ztransform]

.. I tell myself, before I go to sleep..

(Split Enz [wikipedia.org])

Get rich plan

[Progman3K]

For spammers:

1. Start your own telecomm company.
2. Collect personal data from other telecomms
3. Target-spam people on the list you cllected
4. Profit
5. Buy underpants

OK, 5 doesn't strictly belong on the list, I just felt the list was a little spare...

It raises some interesting questions

[hey!]

This is, like so many Administration theories of executive power, novel. Here, the information does not bear on the misdeeds of the phone companies. It is the very act of turning over the information that is a crime.

The administration is telling the telcos that they can commit a crime, and because is suits their policies they will look the other way. Normally immunity involves disclosing information that a party has a right to disclose, but cannot be compelled to disclose. Here the administration is supposedly granting a right to disclose that that the telcos do not otherwise have.

Personally, I don't think this sticks in the next administration. The administration does not have the power to set aside laws that explicitly limit the investigatory power of the state.

Who added this clause?

[MobyDisk]

...from section 408 of the proposed bill, and it's buried beneath the innocuous headline "Liability Defense."

How can a citizen find out who added this clause? As someone pointed out, it is unconstitutional. If a representative puts a blatently unconstitutional paragraph into a law, it should be grounds for immediate removal from office IMHO. (Nevermind the obvious ethical implications) Someone who does that is not qualified for their position, and is not upholding their duty in office. I can't make that happen, but I should at least know who it is, and make others aware.

Re:Who added this clause?

[visualight]

Maybe everyone who contributes a clause to a bill should be required to sign off on it before it's accepted.

Isn't this unconstitutional?

[BrewedInTexas]

Can someone please explain to me why this isn't considered unconstitutional?

Re:

[Mal-2]

Maybe it is, but until it's challenged in court, it doesn't matter. And it can't be challenged in court unless it's passed into law, and it's enforced, and and someone makes a big enough stink about it, and the judicial branch decides to care.

With dependencies like that, it's no surprise the system falls apart a good portion of the time.

Mal-2

What government?

[Arivia]

What government is going to do this? The New World Order? Because I'm pretty sure the Technocracy wouldn't need to *ask* for such information...

the end of the empire that wanted to be...

[razpones]

I hope all this rampant corruption and abuse is the sign that the worst administration in the history of the U.S. is about to collapse. If history is our guide, Rome had the same signs. What will be the aftermath is the question.

I Dropped Verizon As Soon As It Was Known

[NeverVotedBush]

That they complied with one of Bush's illegal and immoral demands for information without a warrant.

I dropped them cold. I terminated my account. Sold my phone. and switched to Qwest - because they refused the illegal demands.

And all should know - if you can retroactively make illegal acts legal, you can make them illegal again if the whole act of making them legal was illegal - which it is.

This administration is so far from a democracy it is amazing that the American people have stood for it. That

Re:

[NeverVotedBush]

Sorry - meant to say Bill Clinton wasted eight years - not ten...

One giant

[Perp Atuitie]

One small step for security, one giant step for American Fascism. AKA Bush's legacy.

I got 3 words for this...

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Fuck That Bullshit

So much for "preserve, protect and defend"

[Guppy06]

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

--Article I, Section 9, clause 3, Constitution of the United States