Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records

Posted by Zonk on Sun Oct 07, 2007 07:14 AM
from the janet-jackson-style-stunts-are-more-important dept.
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."'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties 147 comments
rgiskard01 writes "Glenn Greenwald is reporting at Salon.com on a win for the EFF, in the battle for clarity regarding the telecom surveillance scandal. A federal judge ordered the Bush administration yesterday to accede to the EFF's Freedom of Information Act request. Assuming the White House follows the court order, they would have to make public their lobbying ties to the telecoms industry. 'These disclosures will reveal ... which members of Congress McConnell and other Bush officials privately lobbied. As an argument of last resort, the administration even proposed disclosing these documents on December 31 so that -- as EFF pointed out -- the information would be available only after Congress passed the new FISA bill. The court rejected every administration claim as to why it should not have to disclose these records.'" Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.
[+] Sears Installs Spyware 201 comments
Gandalf_the_Beardy writes in with news that's been around a while but is getting more attention lately. Last month Benjamin Googins, a security researcher at CA, determined that Sears Holding Corp. installed ComScore spyware without adequate disclosure. Sears said, yes we tell people about tracking their browsing. On Jan. 1 spyware researcher Ben Edelman weighed in, noting that Sears' notice occurs on page 10 of a 54-page privacy statement, and twits Sears because its installation identifies the software as "VoiceFive" and later claims it's coming from a company called "TMRG, Inc." even though a packet sniffer confirms the software belongs to ComScore, adding "These confusing name-changes fit the trend among spyware vendors."
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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • oops typo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mgabrys_sf (951552) on Sunday October 07 2007, @07:19AM (#20886823) Journal
    re:""unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program.""

    Should read "unsurprising given that this administration is aware that the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of spineless pussies".

    There you go.
      • by iknownuttin (1099999) on Sunday October 07 2007, @08:59AM (#20887211)
        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.

        Many of my fellow Americans disgust me.

      • 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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2007, @07:39AM (#20886907)
    If Congress can't exert any power in situations like this, what CAN it do?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Applause at the State of the Union?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Impeach the imbecile who appointed him.
    • by pla (258480) on Sunday October 07 2007, @09:09AM (#20887251) Journal
      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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          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.
  • by JackMeyhoff (1070484) on Sunday October 07 2007, @07:47AM (#20886931)
    .. 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.
  • Also unsurprisingly (Score:5, Informative)

    by geminidomino (614729) * on Sunday October 07 2007, @08:20AM (#20887053) Homepage Journal
    Congress is going to respond to this continued emasculation with a painstakingly measured combination of harsh words and sulking.
  • 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.
  • by vtcodger (957785) on Sunday October 07 2007, @09:10AM (#20887263)
    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.

    • by jefu (53450) on Sunday October 07 2007, @10:53AM (#20887959) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by RobertM1968 (951074) on Sunday October 07 2007, @01:03PM (#20888901) Homepage Journal
    SOMEONE needs to remind the government (including the FCC) that THEY work for US - and that WE want this investigated.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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
    • by ZoneGray (168419) on Sunday October 07 2007, @07:40AM (#20886911) Homepage
      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?"
      • by shanen (462549) on Sunday October 07 2007, @08:07AM (#20887003) Homepage Journal
        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
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      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
      • 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)

        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.

        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