Slashdot Log In
FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Oct 07, 2007 06:14 AM
from the janet-jackson-style-stunts-are-more-important dept.
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."'"
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.
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.
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
Formatting, +5 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow the money... who is making it...
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.
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 som
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He'd tell them he was doing it to protect them from the te
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 d
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?"
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.
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 t
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 wi
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Admitted freely, but irrelevant to this particular issue.
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
Absolutely not.
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 proc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, you're wrong. Please see Section 222 of the Communications Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/u [cornell.edu]
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 Ra
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 inves
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think this is a democrat/republican iss (Score:2)