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

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

Re:I welcome

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

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:

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 i

Re:

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

Please don't...

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...

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

Re:

"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 o

Re:

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...

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

Re:

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 th

Retro-what?

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?

Bad idea

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:

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 informati

Re:

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).

What should happen is impeachment of Cheney and Jr

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:

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

Re:

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 the

Re:

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 law

Ah, no ...

... 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 ...

... 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...

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:

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

Not surprising

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:

they could do it furtively a la George Ford pardoning Nixon

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

Come to Canada

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

Re:

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 t

Re:

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...

Too Stupid?

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:

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

Pardon my French: Dear government, fuck off

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:

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

Re:

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 shenani

re: PR

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

Also a way to admit guilt

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......

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

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

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

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.

It's only fair and right!

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

Re:

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].

Privacy? What Privacy?

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:

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

Cue the line from Star Wars

"I will make it legal"

Get rich plan

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

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?

...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?

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?

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

What government?

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...