Slashdot Log In
Telecom Immunity -- We're Down to the Wire(tap)
Posted by
jamie
on Thu Jan 24, 2008 03:00 PM
from the company-that-will-bring-it-to-you dept.
from the company-that-will-bring-it-to-you dept.
The law says telecom providers can't wiretap your phone calls or net traffic, but as long as their taps are legal or they acted in good faith they're already immune from prosecution and lawsuits. That said, your telecom providers are still trying to get Congress to immunize them for cooperating with NSA wiretaps (presumably because the taps were both illegal and done in bad faith). Retroactive immunity wouldn't just mean they get away with it, it would crush our ability as citizens to find out what happened using the power of the courts.
Last month,
Sen. Chris Dodd temporarily stopped the bill, but within days -- probably on Monday -- it's going to be reintroduced, and it's not at all clear it will be stopped again. He'll need strong allies, because he's fighting not just the Bush administration and GOP Senators, but his own party's Sen. Harry Reid and
"AT&T's personal Senator" Jay Rockefeller. So Dodd needs more Senators backing him up, preferably joining a full-blown filibuster on the Senate floor. If you ever want accountability for whatever companies illegally forwarded your data to the NSA, you basically have today and tomorrow to
say
something.
Related Stories
[+]
Senator Slaps Down FISA Telecom Immunity 206 comments
cleetus writes "Today Senator Chris Dodd decided to put a hold on the FISA bill, one of the provisions of which would have granted immunity to any telecom which, if found to have acted in good faith, violated U.S. laws in turning over customer data to the government. According to TPM Election Central, "By doing this, Dodd can effectively hold up the telecom immunity bill, because bills are supposed to have unanimous consent in the Senate before going forward. One Senator can make it very difficult to bring a bill to the floor by objecting to allowing it to go to a vote." This throws a fairly big roadblock in front of this bill, covered by Slashdot earlier today."
[+]
Lawmakers Delay Telco Immunity Vote 102 comments
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.
[+]
Politics: Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill 483 comments
otakuj462 sends in an important followup to this morning's story on telecom immunity legislation. "Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance... [T]he threat of Dodd's filibuster... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period."
[+]
US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms 623 comments
Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.
[+]
White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now 262 comments
austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.
[+]
House of Representatives To Discuss Wiretapping In Closed Session 264 comments
Nimey brings word that for the first time in 25 years, the US House of Representatives will use a closed-door session to discuss proposed wiretapping legislation. The old legislation expired last month when government officials could not agree on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications providers who assisted with the wiretaps. The most recent version of the bill, proposed by House democrats, does not include telecom immunity. Because of that, President Bush has stated his willingness to veto the bill. The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices."
[+]
Politics: House Republicans Renew Push for Telecom Immunity 123 comments
CNet is running an update to the controversy over giving telecommunications giants such as AT&T immunity from lawsuits involving the assistance they gave the NSA for illegal wiretaps. Republican leaders are circulating a petition which would force a vote on the bill passed by the Senate but not by the House. Democrats are holding out for a version of the FISA bill which opens the telecoms to prosecution. President Bush still intends to veto any such document.
"At a wide-ranging House hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller again urged passage of a bill that includes immunity for phone companies, arguing that 'uncertainty' among the carriers 'affects our ability to get info as fast and as quickly as we would want.' He admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction."
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
Loading... please wait.
My letter to Sen Reid yesterday (Score:5, Insightful)
FAX EM (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Two proposed solutions: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Pass a law giving the telcos absolute immunity for the wiretapping, as discussed here. Meaning, no suit can be brought.
2. Pass a law that makes the US Govt liable for the wiretapping, while still allowing the telcos to be sued. This means, suit can be brought, during trial discovery can be made, etc, but whatever liability is ultimately found is covered by the US Govt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it can be stopped (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... (Score:3, Informative)
Contact your senators immediately! If the JC version gets tabled, there's still hope of getting the Intelligence Committee version amended.
Gov't site to help you contact your policritters (Score:3, Informative)
Write Your Representative (wyr): https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml [house.gov]
Write your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm [senate.gov]
Democracy - use it or lose it!
Doubtful (Score:3, Informative)
20-seconds to send your senators feedback (Score:3, Informative)
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, no law may alter the legal status of acts that took place after the fact. This part of the Constitution usually protects legal acts from being criminalized after the fact, but the opposite also holds.
Please participate, it's easy (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said this enough times already, but why not one more. I called my good Senator Herb Kohl's office and had a nice, easy, polite conversation with one of his aids. You see, the way the system works is that a Senator's aids develop opinions on an issue, largely based on what kind of feedback they get from the voting constituency, and the Senator asks them what he should think. This is primarily because there are so many issues in front of a Congress-person there's no way to know them all.
I've said this before too: if you feel too nervous about it, take a shot of vodka. You may not be a big drinker, and there's no reason to get smashed here, but everybody feels more like voicing their opinion after that. I've also said this before: the aids get calls from so many bona fide crackpots that you are going to be like a ray of light in his/her day. Just say what you think in a nice, calm way, e.g., "I really don't think telecoms need to have any special immunity. If they haven't done anything illegal, the courts will find that out in due time (and with due process)." If you can remember to cite the bill in question, that impressed the aids a bit more, because they know you're informed.
In this particular case -- telecom immunity -- I got a letter back describing in detail why Senator Kohl thinks the telecoms don't need any special immunity. It was a great response, and of course I'll be watching to see how he votes, but really the process from my part is complete: either he votes the way I told him "we the people" want, or I organize votes against him next election. That's he way the process works. You must get involved if you want results, and the good news of that is it is quite easy to become involved. It just takes a few minutes a week to stay on top of news and ring your elected officials
Summary misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that this legislation would make GEORGE BUSH retroactively immune from prosecution the felonies he committed in ordering illegal wiretaps.
We've all heard the lines/lies: the taps were started after 9/11 (lie: the started in Feb 2001), taps would have prevented 9/11 (obvious lie for more reasons than I care to enumerate), without this law it's impossible to tap terrorists (lie: there are numerous ways to still tap them, including FISA, this bill just allows innocent Americans to have their 4th Amendment rights violated), without illegal warrantless wire taps there is no way to tap a terrorist in a timely matter (lie: FISA laws allow taps to be in place for 72 hours before requiring and sort of paperwork or warrant), etc. etc.
As far as I can tell, there are two possible explanations for all this:
1) Every single Senator and Congressman in favor of this is completely ignorant of the law and has been completely deluded by the afore mentioned lies
2) They know Bush needs retroactive immunity or he and other Republicans are going to prison.
Frontline's "Cheney's Law" (Score:4, Informative)
Frontline's "Cheney's Law":
"After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/ [pbs.org]
This should open a few eyes.
Even if I'm shot, the hospital could still remove (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Even if it passes the the supreme court can sti (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why presidential elections are so important. Elections have consequences and one of them is the appointment of Supreme Court Judges. Keep that in mind when you make your voting decision. Who do you trust not to appoint pricks to the Supreme Court? With 4 members over retirement age, if the next president is a Republican, we might have a bench made up of a bunch of Clarence Thomases and Sam Alito - guys who believe there is no right to privacy.
And in regard to the right to privacy: even if you don't believe it is spelled out in the Constitution, and many very smart legal minds believe it is spelled out there, it is certainly part of the Common Law upon which all of our laws are based, going back to the Magna Carta. I don't know about the rest of you, but I really don't want to see a legal principal of a man being the "king of his own castle" thrown out by some GOP lickspittle after nearly a thousand years.
Parent
You know what's funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened? I used to be a registered Republican. What happened to the Republican ideal of smaller government. Less regulation? Less interference in our private lives? Are there any non-Neocon/non-evangelical Republicans left? I'd rather four years of Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton...
Parent
Re:You know what's funny? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why shouldn't the telecoms be immune? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's the way things go. The 'paperwork' is called a warrant. If it's been approved, it's very easy to show a copy of said warrant with the judge's signature on it to the telecom folks when you come to request a tap. The only case where it would be 'difficult' and a 'burden' to verify whether a warrant exists for the wiretap is if it's not supposed to be there at all.
Parent
Re:Why shouldn't the telecoms be immune? (Score:5, Insightful)
In that situation, the telecoms are already immune. If the telcoms thought that the government had the appropriate warrents/legal authority to ask for the wiretap, current law makes them immune. The time that the current law does not protect them is if the were not acting in "good faith". Which is a fancy way of saying that a reasonable person in their situation, giving the government the benefit of the doubt, would believe that it was a legit wiretap.
So FBI agent goes to AT&T, and says "wiretap person X." AT&T is immune to any lawsuits, because a reasonable person would trust the FBI agent to have a warrent. However, if an FBI agent goes to AT&T and says "wiretap everyone with an 'X' in their name", AT&T would be required to refuse until more legal documents support the request.
(IANAL).
Parent
Re:Why shouldn't the telecoms be immune? (Score:5, Insightful)
I already explained with the first two links in the story. If the telecoms act in good faith, believing what they are doing is legal, and it turns out not to be, then they are already immune from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
Back in October, Glenn Greenwald interviewed [salon.com] Cindy Cohn of the EFF. As Cohn pointed out, the argument you give here was exactly the one that the telecoms tried to make to Judge Walker, who ruled [eff.org]:
They knew it was illegal at the time. Now they want retroactive immunity.
Parent
Re:Why shouldn't the telecoms be immune? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I actually don't care... (Score:5, Informative)
First, please note that the immunity extends to wiretapping of digital communications.
Also, you may not have heard about Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act [democracynow.org], which basically makes it illegal to have an opinion deemed "extremist."
And the worst part is that the term "extremism" is so vague and poorly defined that it is open to any interpretation by those in power at the time [commondreams.org]. You could awaken one fine morning at 4am and find the FBI raiding your home, on the grounds that your self-proclamation of "infinite wisdom" on slashdot clearly marked you as an "insurgent intellectual."
I wish I was entirely joking.
Parent
Re:I actually don't care... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if said person can not hire a decent attorney? Or worse, is detained incommunicado as a "terrorist", and is not given access to one?
What if no one knows of their incarceration?
A more chilling scenario: does the law not apply to judges, too? What if a judge were arrested for ruling in an extremist manner?
Do you really think that *this* would be enough to rouse the American people? Unless large numbers of them were so treated. I'd expect many would try to avoid "trouble".
Of course, all this is unconstitutional. But, do not think that words on parcement are enough to stop men with guns.
Parent
Re:Mod Article Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a little like suggesting that in the case of a homicide if there's a chance that it was justifiable (such as self defense) then a person should be immune from prosecution since it could cost a person a lot of money to defend themselves against it. (Please note I am not talking about cases where it seems almost certain that it was justifiable, just that there was a chance it might have been).
If the telcoms were clearly acting in good faith then they can file a motion for dismissal. It doesn't really cost them much money at all (in relative terms) to do so. If it isn't so clear then why should they automatically be immune to prosecution?
Parent
Re:Tell him to call Rick Boucher (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, really? Sorry, that's the legislative branch "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
A fact that would be, well, obvious to someone that was reading the whole thing, not just the parts they wanted.
The rest of your post is just silliness - These were wiretaps that occurred in the U.S. - To put it simply, THATS THE FUCKIN' POINT! As a U.S. citizen, I have 4th amendment protection, a fact that was recognized by the courts and the FISA law back in the 70's. It doesn't matter if I'm talking within the U.S. or not, *I* have a constitution, and to eavesdrop on my conversation, you need a warrant - hence the FISA law, and the FISA court - a body that, by odd coincidence, is *very* easy to get a warrant out of.
Except that GWB can't be bothered, and he told people to tap phones . . . without a warrant. Didn't plan on getting one either, despite having provision for getting them after the fact when it's too important to stop and get a warrant - like say, when a terrorist makes a call inside the U.S.
So he said "screw warrants, I'm the president, do it!", and they did, knowing it was illegal. And now we have to deal with that in one of two ways - we can be men about it, and deal with these companies that broke the law and follow where that leads, or we can be pantywaists that can't deal with the concept that it might lead to the President breaking the law, and cut it off before it gets that far.
You're in the pantywaist crowd - I can get that. It's a scary world out there, with bad people in it.
Still, I think you're in the wrong country for it - if you want to live someplace where the law is subject to the needs of the head of state, there are plenty of choices for you.
But don't try to sell some "Oh, we're the realists, and you could never manage without us real men!" BS. Just get the fuck out and go someplace 'safe' where a dictator tucks you in bed and protects you from the evil terrorists. They'll be happy to have you.
Oh - and don't sit there and call yourself "sumdumass", and then whine when someone mentions it. My IQ was evidently sufficiently high not to call myself "Some Dumb Ass" and expect nobody to notice. Admittedly, that doesn't require a *huge* amount of insight, so all we know for sure is on person is dumb enough to pick that moniker, and the other is at least ever-so-slightly smarter - I could be pretty damn dumb, and still be smarter than "sumdumass".
'Nuff Said about that.
Pug (Who has no objections advertising he is homely, but at least ever-so-slightly smarter than some - [G])
Parent