US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms 623
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.
Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the beat goes on. (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't I feel suckered (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxation without representation (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm serious. I know all of you are paying taxes, and shit like this sure as hell means the common guys isn't represented. Time for a few tea parties, methinks.
Glimmer of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
But, my pockets aren't as deep as brother bells... So, I'm not betting on it
According to the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*
*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"
info request (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.
Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?
Is there Immunity for Congressmen??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).
Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.
(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary has been going on and on about the number of times Obama did not vote when he was in the Illinois Senate. Hopefully he'll use this as ammunition.
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year, there was one big-ass march [unitedforpeace.org] in D.C. protesting the war.
What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.
March all you like...it doesn't matter. We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.
Re:info request (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone explain to me if this is a weird special case, or if its normal??
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that the media was ever independent to begin with. Ever hear about yellow journalism [wikipedia.org]? Ever read about the origins of the Spanish-American war?
The media has never been independent. That shouldn't stop people from fighting for change.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pardon me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:5, Insightful)
You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.
I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.
Re:info request (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect to see that within the next 5-10 years, max.
The US really has started slipping into a hole, and won't be digging out of it any time soon.
Cheers
Ex Post Facto = Not allowed (Score:3, Insightful)
There aren't any clauses in there that could be interpreted as "unless it legalizes an act", so ANY law that changes the legal ramifications of an act that occurred before that law was passed is unconstitutional.
Of course, the Constitution is an optional, irrelevant document, so none of it really matters. Just look at (Amendments 1,2,9):
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.
It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:info request (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:3, Insightful)
You really need to stop trying to be snarky long enough to open your eyes. Here's some reading for you:
Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps [guardian.co.uk]
Milton Mayer: An excerpt from "They Thought They Were Free" [uchicago.edu]
I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.
Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately?
Re:How much will we abide? (Score:3, Insightful)
Voting is irrelevant. Rule of Law is not upheld by voting, it is upheld by bringing criminals to justice. When criminals control the dispensing of justice you have a broken system. Our forefathers rightly divided the government to institute checks and balances but what happens when all three refuse to maintain balance? You have the "nuclear option", clearly defined in our Declaration of Indepence; the governed must throw off their leaders.
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you willing to march, armed, on D.C. and fight, and die, to restore the idea that no man or company is above the law, and that things like retroactive immunity for the rich few are an abomination?
No? You're not willing?
Neither am I.
They know it. That's why we lose.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about. Perhaps they could turn around and file a shareholder suit (on the grounds that AT&T worked against shareholder interests by cooperating with and being held liable for the wiretap program), though I'm told those types of suits aren't very common these days.
While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself.
At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?
What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Naturally those individuals would try to hide behind the shield of corporate liability; I would hope (though I can't remember if it's the case) that taking actions outside of -- and even contrary to -- the corporation's interests would make a case for PCV.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.
Only 26 Senators voted against this (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Clinton was
Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.
Re:Don't agree with the move.. but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it.
Absolutely not sir.
Both the government that asked them to commit something illegal and the people that actually commited the illegal act (this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal).
Its called a conspiracy sir.
All parties are at fault.
(sorry about spelling at work using IE yuck).
Re:Stunned (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying that over the pond we are any better off. We have our fair share of lamed assed Politicians who's modus operandi if offered as evidence in a court of law would be considered fraud.
It all boils down to one great truth really...'we the powerfull/rich like money, we want more, we dont care how we get, we are damm sure its gonna be at your expense, but hey learn your level within the food chain'.
Now the Trend Micro attack on CLAMAV being included in another boarder gateway product, looks like it may be having a negative impact on potential future sales...god bless the enlightend.
There is one big hurdle to the use of 'voting with your credit card'..... apathy, we've got spades of it over here, god im guilty of it myself, but until people in large numbers get together and boycott companies/corporations aint nothing gonna change.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me all of his detractors that call him an extremist who is blindly supporting some outdated, irrelevant document -- people who then complain about this stuff being passed. Don't you realize that this is the kind of thing Ron Paul would stop?
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:1, Insightful)
There are 20 Million mexicans who would argue with you.
Re:The Republicans lied; the filibusters had a dea (Score:2, Insightful)
United States of America, R.I.P. 2/12/2008 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy is the ability of the minority to keep the majority in check.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:3, Insightful)
Strict border control does not make a police state. A state is deemed a police state by how it treats its law abiding CITIZENS, not foreign nationals who wish to enter the country. If border control and airport security is how you judge police states, can you show me a country that is NOT a police state? Is Canada a police state too? France? Japan?
Re:Don't I feel suckered (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes
AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.
I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.
The true purpose of the lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and these lawsuits are in fact the point of the spear aimed at the root of the problem.
Punishing the telcos and getting damages isn't the important part. It's something that should be done, but it is really just a means to an end. The ultimate point is to find out through discovery what exactly the government did. The aim is to get evidence out into the open, in the public record, of the government's malfeasance.
Once the spear point has pierced the government's veil of secrecy, then we can drive it deeper into the government itself. With the information revealed in the suits, it may be possible to sue the government, get court rulings about the legality of the administration's practices, and ultimately set up the possibility of future prosecution. If it can create enough of a scandal to cost politicians and bureaucrats their careers, while not optimal, that can still serve as a check to keep the government in line for a while.
This is also, ultimately, what the immunity provisions are about. It's nothing to do with protecting telcos from having to pay damages, that's just the means to an end. It's all about preventing anyone from discovering what the government really did -- they even admit it when talking about why the provision is necessary, though of course they couch it in "national security secrets" terms. Bush and team are trying to cover their own ass, and cowardly Congress is going along with it.
By the way, you raise a good point about Google and China. Personally I don't forgive Google, but at the same time I recognize the realities of working with a government like China's, one such reality being that censoring the people is not illegal. At the same time our government is not China's, our government is supposed to respect human rights, and more importantly it is illegal for them not to just as it is illegal for AT&T. And also because our government is not China's, we the people should be able to discover when our government or corporations break the law and demand redress. Which, coming full circle, is exactly what these lawsuits are about.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, one of the foundations of our nation is eroded, that is the citizen's protection from search without warrents, and a major crime will go unpunished. This tells the citizens that we are at the mercy of the executive branch, who has time and time again showed that they are above the law.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.
2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.
3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.
4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.
5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.
Therefore:
We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.
Re:Please do explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The true purpose of the lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't an abuse. The lawsuits are just, because the telcos broke the law, and they should be punished for that.
I thought your complaint was that this wasn't addressing the true problem of the government breaking the law. I'm explaining how the lawsuits also address that. And just so you know, it is extremely common and not considered an abuse at all for an otherwise just and proper suit to have other strategic purposes, whether that be establishing a precedent, creating situations ripe for appeal and perhaps judicial review, to yes in fact exposing other crimes which leads to other lawsuits.
The problem with suing the government is that until we actually know for certain what they did any lawsuit isn't even going to get off the ground, its doubtful anyone would even have standing to do so until we know more. If you really think the government should be sued, the telco lawsuits are the best first step in doing so.
Re:Please do explain (Score:3, Insightful)
If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.
If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.
If harsh penalties are ascribed, the same risk\benefit calculations will occur, but corporate leaders will be much less likely to approve cooperation with the government as far as illegal wiretapping is concerned.
Re:Stunned (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pug
Re:Stunned (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, keep in mind that a company and its shareholders are liable for the actions of its employees, provided its employees are acting on its behalf. My employer earns money from my work; shouldn't they lose money if I break the law? Think of investments, like stocks. If the company beats expectations, the stock goes up and you earn money (usually). If the company performs poorly, we all lose. Did I have any say in their decision to hire employee X who then cost $7 billion in losses? No. But as a shareholder, I'll still lose money.
Re:Stunned (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't trust anyone except myself. If there is a threat coming my way, I think my state would have a better idea about how to defend itself rather than the feds.
The problem is that there are some weak governors (mine included) that would await federal approval for something they don't need approval for.
Re:Stunned (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it in familiar terms, this is an act of closed source government, where the directive in question may have catastrophic vulnerabilities that we can't protect ourselves from because we can't see the source of these annexes.
Re:The purpose of the lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
1: AT&T is the one that gets all the Press, Qwest I think is out of it, with a boned CEO, but I'm sketchy on who all the players are.
2: Again, sketchy on this, but I believe it goes along the lines of: copying the communications of innocent, law abiding American citizens too government agencies for their perusal/review, with no clearly defined limits on retention or use (see 4th amendment in the bill of rights).
3: I know the EFF is big on this, pretty sure the ACLU is also participating. Probably others.
4: To hold those who have broken the law accountable via fiscal penalty? Yeah, I think that sounds about right.
Oddly enough, the only questions you asked that matter are 2 and 4. Who the players are is moot really.
Speaking as a well-meaning (or mean spirited, can never remember) libritarian, I can tell you that no one who has any interest in the goings on of government is 'ignorant of the real dangers in the world'. We all accept danger ever day in real life, from driving to work, to soap in the shower, to fat in our diets. All of those have killed a lot more of us than any enemy of the US ever has, or will. Especially if the government does not serve the will of the people, because at that point, there really is no US. There will just be a body of people living on the same land mass in a state of fear; and those real threats will have won.
Remember, terrorism only works if your fear keeps you from living life. So get out of your bubble, use your spine, and accept the risk and knowledge that bad things will happen.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:1, Insightful)
Modern America, by contrast, only requires travel papers for travelling by automobile, ferry, train, or plane, or when crossing any checkpoints, has secret prisons (but gets embarrassed when they're discovered, and has to move them), sanctions using torture as long as weasel words are used in documents, has only semi-secret police, and has -- as far as we know - only a few secret laws so far (mostly involving DHS and TSA). Also, the US has habeas corpus, unless the someone on the police/army end of the operatoin is willing to say "terrorist", in which case it doesn't have habeas corpus any longer.
The difference is... I guess an exercise for the reader.
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stunned (Score:3, Insightful)
Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.
Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes bad ones?
The Constitution and resistance to change (Score:3, Insightful)
You should never make any long term decisions in a crisis. People are horrible at it and tend to be highly irrational at such times. Look how badly we have done after 9/11. How much worse would we have done with a more fluid government system? That is why we have checks and balances (among other reasons), why Supreme Court appointments are for life, and many other things. At the same time, the system does allow slow change, through new laws, amendments, new appointments to the judiciary over time, and so forth. Our system has changes a good bit since the Founders' day (some to the good, at this precise moment, much to the bad). Our government and Constitution is not perfect, certainly, but the Founder's did a pretty good job, if you think about it, of anticipating a lot of potential problems, quite a few of which warnings we have ignored. Sure, it can use touching up in places (I can think of several off hand), but if you think about the number of popular revolutions which ended in total chaos and bloodbaths (e.g. France, Russia, China), we didn't do badly at all.
Re:Stunned (Score:2, Insightful)