FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records 97
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."'"
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.
Republicans also (Score:1, Insightful)
They're all frightened of being called soft on terror if they don't do whatever the faction in the Whitehouse says (I'm not going to say Bush, because he's some sort of figure head for them, not a person in control, a mascot to rally around).
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.
Here's how low my standards have sunk... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
- Economy: Taxes pay you.
- War: Fights you.
- Power: Asserts you.
- Politics and Party: Plays you.
I hope we all learned something today.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 is so successful. All he has to do is imply some innuendo and people like yourself grab it and run all the way with it. He has said the truth does not matter, only opinion.
Why do you think that under the same rules of financial management, Bush Sr lost
Formatting, +5 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The most recent rate [bls.gov] is 4.7%. Even looking at the 4.6% rate for 2006 it is still higher than the 4.0% that Bill Clinton left Dubya with.
Re: (Score:1)
agree or disagree with criticism directed toward Democrats in congress, this is obviously a troll post
Re: (Score:2)
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 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:2)
Fixed that for you.
If you include ANY large organization in that sweeping statement (e.g., including corporations), then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, you're just another libertarian nutjob who believes in the Tooth Fairy and that an unregulated free market won't end up screwing over the poor.
The libertarian attitude toward compassion (and the emphasis on lack of it) is one of the rea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I think the purpose of the US Postal Service monopoly is to provide stable jobs for people who aren't very ambitious and/or not very talented. Stated that way, I think it's a good use of money. But if you tell me that it's a good way to deliver the mail, then that's bullshit. If you took away their monopoly, they'd be out of business within a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I have no problem paying the nice people to walk around all day and deliver junk mail and wear a uniform, if that's what
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 the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense, we're seeing competition between the various governmental systems. One of the characteristics of the American system is that the winner take all dy
Re: (Score:1)
"I sort of agree with you insofar as both parties have been captured by big business interests."
--
U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.
Most nations, other than the U.S., have private member based national political parties. Parties whose members, directly or indirectly, write and approve an enforceable political platform that gives political unity to the party. Conversely, prior to U.S. national elections, the DNC's and RNC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
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 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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
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:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Just a bunch of domesticated primates acting purely out of self-interest, for their own advancement. No conspiracies involved.
The Kool Aid at MoveOn must be pretty good to keep ill informed people repeating stupid things.
What a strange comment... I don't drink Kool Aid; I don't follow MoveOn; and as for well-informed, by dear little pot, you might find it somewhat more effective to post some form of factual ref
Re: (Score:1)
"conspiracy theory
-noun
the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. "
Here are some recent examples for you.
1. The Jews control the world's money supply.
2. The Bushies started the Iraq war to make themselves richer.
3. Cheney started the Iraq war to give $billions in business to Haliburton.
4. Hillary Clinton and Phyllis Diller are the same person because they have the sa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Fine by me.. (Score:1)
America's phone records are handled by.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good thing. (Score:1)
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 Razvedki. Sure, why not use the SVR
Re: (Score:1)
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:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Investigative responsibility depends on structure and laws. The FCC, like many other large entities, has its own internal investigations group. That's the appropriate place for an investigation to start from cost and familiarity aspects. That was true of the Bill Clinton ATF just as it is true of the George Bush FCC.
Re: (Score:1)
This consolidation provided the government easy access to private records of the entire nation. The FCC indirectly facilitated the government's ability to violate your privacy; ignorance is allowing the FCC to investigate corruption that has tainted itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick heads up on Mr. Powell (Score:2)
-Rick
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 some form of encryption there is no secure communications. From bored comm techs to overly enthusiastic FBI agents and NSA operatives, there is always someone listening. You can expect privacy but you aren't going to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no such thing as private communication (Score:2)
Yeah, I've heard that people will even be so crazy as admit to committing felonies, like listening in on others' phone conversations. Can you believe it??
Re: (Score:1)
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 terrorists, and they'd thank him for it.
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)
Re:I don't think this is a democrat/republican iss (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 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
Re: (Score:1)
Independent investigations of government needed (Score:1)
Legality, property rights, and privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Many big corps and individuals feel
Re: (Score:1)
I believe there is an EU regulation that has been implemented in (well at least our it is) member states, that specifies how the information concerning individuals must be stored, to whom it may be given and under what circumstances - for all other matters it is considered confidential. There is a State Person Data Inspection, which actually does follow this. AFAIK, not very closely, but you definitely can go and complain and they