Telecom immunity for domestic spying dies on House floor

The House of Representatives just took a long weekend break without voting on the Spy bill sent down from the Senate. As such, our beloved carriers' hopes for immunity from those pesky US privacy laws have disintegrated. At least for the time being -- the fight between the baddies and goodies (however you define that) isn't over by a long shot.

[AJ in the East Bay @ Feb 15th 2008 2:11AM]

F*CK YEAH!!

[Austin @ Feb 15th 2008 2:18AM]

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling constitution.

[majortom @ Feb 15th 2008 2:22AM]

don't kid yourself. the NSA never heard of the constitution.

[David @ Feb 15th 2008 2:37AM]

no... the NSA never heard about the Bill of Rights in the constitution

but the got the prosecution shit down fo'shizzle

[John @ Feb 15th 2008 11:27AM]

The NSA knows what it's doing wrong, they're just not gonna let us know. They know it will upset us and maybe get some of them arrested. But, it's for our own good, to protect us from those who hate us for what we believe in. Things like freedom of speech and innocent till proven guilty,habeas corpus, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ... wait... crap.

[tbirdman @ Feb 15th 2008 2:29AM]

second time this week a Dr. Strangelove pic awesome. Great movie. great ending.

[captain underpants and the bringdown gang @ Feb 15th 2008 2:42AM]

who smells a class-action lawsuit against AT&T?

[Reader @ Feb 15th 2008 2:47AM]

I wouldn't know what one smells like, but I'm gonna guess a mix between acrid and ozone.

[David @ Feb 15th 2008 3:01AM]

What does ozone smell like?

....I know that cyanide smells like almonds....mmmmm......almonds....

[captain underpants and the bringdown gang @ Feb 15th 2008 4:07AM]

Class Action law suits smell like hemp and cotton (thats what our currency is made out of)

[Wwhat @ Feb 15th 2008 4:59AM]

ozone smells a bit sour/metallic, not too nice.

[tcc3 @ Feb 15th 2008 9:01AM]

Ozone is that unpleasant chemical smell an ionizing air purifier makes. Also the smell of laser printers or copiers.

[Johnny5 @ Feb 15th 2008 12:38PM]

A bit late to the party CUBG-
https://www.eff.org/cases/att

I think this lawsuit may be the reason the immunity rider was slipped onto the new FISA bill in the first place.

[brandon H @ Feb 15th 2008 2:43AM]

Thank god!

[Cellenin @ Feb 15th 2008 2:54AM]

I think this post over on Gizmodo sums it up.


"i don't get why everyone is so up in arms about this whole thing. as long as you have nothing to hide, why should you care? the government couldn't care less about your social life or whatever it is you talk about.and also, what the hell is this about breaking laws? where in the constitution does it say that wiretapping is illegal? its just depends on how you (mis)interpret the bill of rights."
(JBHITTER24)

[Superprime @ Feb 15th 2008 3:19AM]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin

Recommended reading:
1984
Fahrenheit 451

Also watch Equilibrium

[Cellenin @ Feb 15th 2008 3:25AM]

@ Superprime
Read it...
Saw it...
could care less about it.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

weak and timid = Libs/Dems

[404error @ Feb 15th 2008 4:06AM]

Ok...so History entrusts the care of freedom to the Republicans? LMAO good one

[JLTate @ Feb 15th 2008 4:14AM]

@Cellenin
A little more incendiary that I might have put it, but I still agree whole heartedly.

[Craig @ Feb 15th 2008 7:50AM]

I believe the US' founders considered "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to be unalienable rights. Some NSA/CIA/FBI operatives monitoring every word I say is, to me, a clear infringement on my liberty, if not also my ability to pursue happiness. After all, doing something illegal isn't necessarily doing something wrong.

[Will @ Feb 15th 2008 8:26AM]

Since we're throwing quotes around Eisenhower also said:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Good of you to mis-represent his other quote though.

[Paul @ Feb 15th 2008 8:53AM]

Or one of my favorite quotes can go here, "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people."

You say the constitution does not protect against warrentless wiretapping, but it does. I suggest you read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

This entire Telecom Immunity thing pisses me off on so many levels, but here are just a couple major reasons it really gets me mad.

1. If the Federal Government had gone to the FISA courts AS THEY ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO and gotten a warrant for wiretapping WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED, then the telecom industries are legally immune to legal action. Read that again. If the telecom industries had followed the law and demanded a warrant, there would be no issue. Instead, they followed an illegal order, broke the law, shared private, protected information and now must face the consequences.

2. If you tapped your neighbors phone lines, how long would you go to jail? How much money would they sue you for? A long time, and a shit load of money. Now, our government has illegally tapped every single phone line that crosses the United States with out any oversight (they could be listening in on anyone). If they were not tapping local phone lines, why did they not get a FISA warrant? The warrant that would have protected the government and provided immunity to the telecom industries.

The argument that, "If you have done nothing wrong, they why be worried?" I think is best answered by the saying, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". If they have no accountability what is to stop them from tapping opposing political parties phone lines? Its been done before if you dont think this could happen, look at Nixon.

[ChefF @ Feb 16th 2008 1:54AM]

A few months ago a buddy had just gotten back from a trip to Amsterdam. Twenty minutes home and the DEA and Homeland Sec break his door down and accuse him of being a distribution network. They planted drugs and shell casing in the house. Then ripped it apart.
They found nothing and it cost him his marriage, his job, his law degree and he is in debt for the rest of his life.

His life is ruined because of a stupid senseless act.

These laws have it so that you are locked up indefinitely, not allowed a lawyer, no charges have to be levied. You are an enemy of the state. Does not matter that you may be innocent, they are drunk with power at this point.
Laws need to be passed to protect the average American from this witch hunt.
It was a neighbor that hated his wife that filed the report.

[Izzy @ Feb 15th 2008 9:26AM]

@Cellenin

That is a totally fascist attitude. How would you like it if you hired a contractor to paint your house and he decided to search it as well? What do you care? You have nothing to hide.

Hiel Hitler!

[Hax Or @ Feb 15th 2008 9:46AM]

Equilibrium was a great movie.

*lights turn off*

*shooting starts*

[mlvowell @ Feb 15th 2008 9:50AM]

I think, Cellenin, that you should ask yourself this question, when you start to think that the administration should be able to tap phone lines without warrants and the telecoms should be immune from lawsuit. What if Hillary Clinton were elected president? Would you be as insistent that HER administration have the same ability? If not, what's the difference?

[Scott @ Feb 15th 2008 10:48AM]

"If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him." — Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642).

[Chris in CA @ Feb 15th 2008 11:16AM]

My personal favorite uttered a long time ago by a fellow named Patrick Henry:
"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

I believe the latter comment attributed to Eisenhower is correct- we need to be responsible for our freedom. The problem is, we go about our lives absorbed in ourselves and don't pay attention to those around us. We each have a personal responsibility for the safety of ourselves and the safety of others. I don't like this telecom immunity deal, it stinks. The complete lack of oversight is appalling. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure our freedom, and these actions circumvented ALL of them. I don't have anything to hide, but I still lock my doors when I'm not at home.
We need to be patriots in the sense that we need to be aware of those around us and be diligent. I'm not talking about where everyone is a spy, but just be mindful. If your neighbor died alone in their house, how long do you think it would go unnoticed? When the neighbors trash can is out an extra day, do you just curse them or check on them? If we fulfilled some of our citizen duties, the gov't would have NO reason to spy on us, and this little escapade would have been over before it even started.

[Derbeste @ Feb 15th 2008 2:50PM]

The three steps needed to sieze power:

1. Creat a fear (terrorism)

2. Offer to protect the people from that fear

3. Convince the people that you cannot protect them from that fear unless they give up some freedoms and rights

This is the system all the generals and dictators throughout history have used to sieze power and keep the people at bay.

Even the emporer in SW episode III did that (since no one cares about history). And I believe the reply was, "So that's how freedom dies....to the sound of thunderous applause."

Safety CANNOT be garanteed. It is simply impossible to do. So why don't they garantee our freedoms instead?

Anytime ANY organization wants immunity from the public at large.....something is up. Perhaps it is them and NOT us...that has something to hide.

[ZeroCorpse @ Feb 15th 2008 3:44PM]

I love how some people think a quote from a prominent historical figure wins the argument for them.

Here are some more quotes for you:

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. "

"If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence and his comprehension... would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution. "

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. "

"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order."

"Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed. "

"I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center. "

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? "

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. "

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it. "

"This world of ours... must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. "


Oh my! Do you know what horrible leftist said these awful peace-loving, pro-civil rights things?

Dwight D. Eisenhower.

It looks like George W. Bush could learn a thing or two from President Eisenhower.

[rip @ Feb 15th 2008 4:22PM]

A lot of people ask how Mussolini gained power and popularity. The usual answer was "well the trains are running on time."

A lot of people ask how the Germans could let the holocaust happen.

The simple answer was "well, it doesn't affect me personally, so why should I care."

In other words, they said "well, I'm not doing anything wrong, so this doesn't affect me."

In other words, that attitude only works currently in the US if you are a white Bush conservative that completely kowtows to the party line. Not to mention a completely self-centered ass. If you are both, then yes, you really have nothing to worry about.

If on the other hand, you are an American, and believe in liberty and freedom, and happen to have a conscience, you should be very worried.

[stupidmonkey @ Feb 15th 2008 5:14PM]

Cellelin. Why don't you move out to Iran, North Korea, or China cuz you would fit right in with the dimwitted people and the spying laws there.

Or we could ship you back to Africa if that's where you're from. If you want to be an American, you have to defend your rights. Don't let this nation be taken over by corporations and dictatorial regimes.

Where does it say that wiretapped people are actually terrorists for that matter? If you've seen "V for Vendetta" and cringed at the notion of spy vehicles roaming the streets listening onto conversations, then you should be happy that the spying immunity bill didn't go through.

[Cellenin @ Feb 15th 2008 2:56AM]

Where in the Constitution does it say "wire tapping terrorist making calls inside and outside the united states" is illegal?

[jason51873 @ Feb 15th 2008 3:20AM]

You ever hear of the saying:

Give someone an inch and they will take a mile

That about sums it up. Thanks...

[Brandon @ Feb 15th 2008 3:20AM]

Where in the post&comment does it say "wire tapping terrorist making calls inside and outside the united states" is illegal? No one said spying on "terrorists" is illegal. Focus.

[eric @ Feb 15th 2008 6:31AM]

Cellenin, I think you might want to read the Fourth Amendment and the body of case law relating to it and domestic wiretapping.

[John @ Feb 15th 2008 7:30AM]

Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Also, this isn't about whether or not the government is allowed to wiretap; that's not the point. We know that the government wiretaps frequently. The point of the matter is that now the government wants to PROHIBIT ITS OWN CITIZENS FROM LITIGATION against telecom companies if there is a violation of our rights.

Keep in mind that a few years ago, we were debating on whether the government should even allow warrantless wiretaps under the PATRIOT act renewal. Now we're debating whether or not citizens should even seek retribution if they feel that their rights have been violated. Little by little, Bush has eaten away at the judicial branch, and the balance of power is extremely out of whack. The slippery slope/snowball effect theories are holding true, and it's quite scary.

[Lemmiwinks @ Feb 15th 2008 2:33PM]

Please read up on the concept of "precedent."

Then, imagine how much you'll love the executive branch's newfound powers once Barack or Hill-dawg holds the Oval Office.

[Lemmiwinks @ Feb 15th 2008 2:37PM]

And... if you're so secure with the platitude: "If you're doing nothing wrong, what have you to hide?"

If the DoJ and Bush administration have done nothing wrong, then why are they fighting so desperately for immunity and exaggerating the scope of executive privilege?

[ZeroCorpse @ Feb 15th 2008 3:56PM]

Oh my...

Have you actually even READ the USA PATRIOT Act?!?!

Do you know what the legal definition of "terrorist" is, by the letter of that law?

A terrorist is "anyone who threatens the security of the United States or its citizens" and the determination of who is a terrorist (with or without any evidence, mind you) is up to the Attorney General and President of the United States of America.

Under that vague definition, a person who starts a fistfight in a bar could be considered a terrorist. A person who JAYWALKS could be considered a terrorist, too. If you violate ANY law of the Unites States, you could be deemed a terrorist because you "threaten the security" of American citizens.

Drunk driver? Terrorist.
Speeding? Terrorist.
Smoking pot? Terrorist.
Stealing? Terrorist.
Broken taillight? Terrorist!

The point is that the interpretation is SO LOOSE that they can accuse anyone of terrorism in order to justify this sort of wiretapping, and to suspend habeas corpus, and to strip a person of their citizenship and rights.

It amazes me that so many people who defend the President's damn-near-fascist programs have never really read these same programs to see how they're affected personally.

Oh, but of course, most neo-cons think that they're such good Americans that they're immune to this sort of thing, and it's only "real" terrorists and lefty commie pinkos who will suffer under these laws.

The difference between you and me? I don't like you or your politics, but I fight to ensure that you aren't stripped of your rights by your own government. I demand freedom for ALL Americans; Not just the ones who resemble me.

It must suck to be so xenophobic and cultish that you cannot function around liberals and non-Americans, or see people who aren't like you as "the enemy" or think it's OK if they have their citizenship removed.

It will be a pleasure watching the Democratic candidate defeat the Republican candidate this year. John McCain won't be President. Your own party doesn't even like him. He's crazy.

[John @ Feb 15th 2008 4:09AM]

Actually, the big point of this is what Ted Kennedy said:

"Think about what we’ve been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ark9HpmuZLKkKNJRvLgXvjTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080214174818AAj4U9T

[JLTate @ Feb 15th 2008 4:38AM]

So then doesn't that mean that Ted Kennedy is willing to put lives on the line to call Bush's supposed bluff?

The problem with removing immunity from FISA is that it effectively cuts all future cooperation from the telecom industry with related intelligence operations because the government will have turned their backs on them.

The government will have allowed them to have been sued for actions... that were taken on the request of the government.

[Joe @ Feb 15th 2008 5:02AM]

Or they could have behaved like Qwest, and you know, ask to see the warrant.

Anyway, it's not about the government asking for it and them giving it, with the assumption that they were going to file the paperwork. It's the fact that they let the feds do this 100s or 100s of times without asking for any of the required documents. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me 1000 times and I deserve everything I get.

[Wwhat @ Feb 15th 2008 5:03AM]

This bill's rejection only is an issue for ILLEGAL taps, not for legal ones.
The government can easily ask for legitimate permission if there is legitimate reason to tap.
The whole thing is caused by AT&T allowing the NSA to place a splitter that taps EVERYTHING from EVERY SINGLE PERSON in america, or communicating with or through it.

[Robert in Texas @ Feb 15th 2008 5:16AM]

And just how would you legally tap *with* a warrant unless you sampled every packet passing a node to see whom it is to/from? With or without a warrant, you use the same technology and examine the same packets. But if the bill dies, the government can do neither, so terrorists can now communicate with impunity.

[Sean O @ Feb 15th 2008 5:14AM]

Democrats show a spine for a change. Amazing.

[absurdio @ Feb 15th 2008 5:49AM]

Habeas corpus is already on the fritz.
I'll be a thought-criminal in no time.
No, people stop paying attention, and they trust their freedoms to bullish fear-mongers.
Then, for their safety, they haven't got any freedoms.

[chris @ Feb 15th 2008 6:22AM]

The argument of I have nothing to hide is not the point. If we give all the power to the government so says they will not abuse. The more freedoms we lose the easier it is for the government to scare the general population. Also, the more freedoms we lose the closer we become to becoming a fascist state.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
Benjamin Franklin

[Julian Bond @ Feb 15th 2008 7:48AM]

No retro-active immunity for the Telcos. So, how about retro-active immunity for the Politicians?

[wickedpheonix @ Feb 15th 2008 8:07AM]

For anyone wondering, the 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Considering the fact that the telephone did not exist back in the 18th century, the essence of the amendment has been interpreted as the right to privacy - if the government cannot look at your private papers without a warrant, it should not be able to listen in on your phone calls (wiretapping) without a warrant.

The act in question states that the government does not need a warrant to have a wiretap on Americans if the government suspects such citizens as being involved in acts of terrorism - making the 4th amendment useless. Nobody should trust their government to do anything like this according to the law - there will most definitely always be some agent of the government who will hide under the terrorism clause.

Live free, or die - and I will once again quote Ben Franklin - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and ask people to read Fahrenheit 451 and read 1984.