Telecom immunity for domestic spying dies on House floor
By Thomas Ricker 
posted February 15th 2008 2:03AM
posted February 15th 2008 2:03AM
posted February 15th 2008 2:03AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Or do the weak and timid, when confronted by terror, begin pointing fingers and hiding in bunkers? That, Cellenin, is something for you to dwell on.
Its also fair to ask who determines who a terrorist is? Is a politician, ferverant in his belief this his supports would riot, an inciter to violence or a terrorist? Or is he just a politician and the state of affairs so bleak that violence occurs?
Under the idea that political disagreement would bring harm to the common good, every Kenyan right now is a terrorist: the President for buying the election, the opposition for allowing that to cause them to act.
Giving a government the right, without proper reason, to tap anyone's calls or read their mail is the problem. We already know that Nixon tapped many Americans with the intent of capturing the presidency and sabotaging the election process. What force would over-see any other president's wire-tapping then? Right now the courts would be, but the Patriot Act allows much tapping to go un-checked.
Our laws are based on checks and balances, Cellenin. Remove those, and as our founding fathers new, dictatorship would not be far off.
Now if you would like to live in total fearlessness of terrorism, move to the nearest dictatorship at your convenience. There are a couple of great ones in the middle east and Africa, and Hugo Chavez is running something like that down south. And his dictatorship has women too.
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.
Daedric.. you're the idiot. "Hate" crimes are a thoughtcrime. If I beat someone up, that's a crime. But if I'm a member of a paticular race, and I make remarks about your race as I'm beating you up, now it's a "Hate" crime, and somehow worse than if I didn't say mean things to you at the time.
Me personally, I'm more "afraid" of random crime, ad not "hate" crime.
I don't think you read the comments that already addressed your misinterpretation of the Constitution.
On another point, as to what others would do, it would have to be something drastic. One of them would be to stop making enemies, such as building military bases around the world. Stop involving ourselves in the affairs of others. It's ridiculous that people think we have enemies because we're rich or free, because none of our enemies have ever said that is the reason they attack. Russia is not rich nor free, but they have terrorist groups attacking them too, because they want to keep the nations they invaded long ago. China is not rich nor free, but they do not have enemies, except maybe for the U.S. who wants to attack them if they take back Taiwan. China essentially stays out of other people's business, and so they don't make enemies. U.S. just makes enemies around the world.
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.
To all those arguing that the House not renewing the Protect America Act leaves us vulnerable to terrorists, you are wrong. FISA is a perfectly sufficient legal solution to strike a balance between security and liberty. Bush can get a wiretap instantly, without even needing to show a warrant for up to 3 whole days. He just can't do it without oversight. You're perfectly safe -- provided you trust the Bush Administration and NSA to use those tools effectively, that is.
This has already been addressed to you many times over. Our problem is not with wiretapping. Our problem is with *warrantless* wiretapping and the blatant attempt by the administration to change the laws to make what they've already illegally done legal. This includes, but is not anywhere limited to, nullifying any recourse an innocent civilian has when they're wronged by these actions.
@Cellinen
The fourth Amendment says that people have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure in there persons and homes. The Judicial Branch through it's findings over the years has found that phone conversations are private. That's why the cops have to get warrants to wiretap mafiosos, drug dealers, et cetera. That's why in most states it's illegal to record phone conversations without advising the person on the other end of the phone that you are doing so. "This call may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes" FISA was written originally in response to Government abuse of surveillance technology. FISA authorized electronic surveillance in 2 circumstances and in both circumstances, the subject of the electronic surveillance had to be an agent of a Foreign Power.
Additionally, why do telecoms need immunity if they didn't break the law? If the Government is making lawful requests, the telecoms can't refuse, legally. Immunity for the telecoms protects the executive branch. If lawsuits move forward, the Telecoms, to be able to defend themselves, will have to reveal publicly details of their involvement with the Federal Government.
Also, the Constitution was written in a far scarier time than now. What, 3000 people died in the 9-11 attacks. In the revolutionary war, 100000 people died trying to free themselves from an abusive monarchy.
Chimpy and his cronies regularly say that the democrats "Provide aid and comfort to the enemy", and since "you are with us or against us", Doesn't that mean that Chimpy thinks I'm with the terrorists, since I'm making comments on internet forums that oppose the way he governs? And since the threat to us is so dire that the Government shouldn't have to obey it's own laws, why is it a stretch to think that they might decide that what I'm saying is seditous and treasonous, and as such forbidden. And since they can monitor everything that is written, they could be reading this right now, and demanding that Weblogsinc provide them my ip address, so they can come silence me. Is it really that much of a stretch? Really? First, for all their BS and all the "We need this tool to fight the terrorists", where or when have you heard or seen any regard for safeguarding our freedoms, our civil liberities? "Trust us, we wouldn't do that"? Just like we wouldn't torture people? You can pull the old "they have more important things to do than to monitor a bunch of computer geeks", but it has happened before, in the era of Joe McCarthy, and the Government put this law, FISA, in place to protect against future scenarios where it would occur.
Really? you aren't doing anything wrong so you have nothing to worry about? You don't think your privacy is that important? You think that in the next 10 years health insurance companies won't be data mining to find out what medical risks you are subject to, and by extension what risk you are to their profit? You don't think that your bad habits, smoking, TV, Video games, Bacon, whatever won't be considered when they decide what you're premiums are? You don't think that some high school prank or juvenile indiscretion will be used to judge whether you are Ivy league material? You don't think that your minor experimentation with Marijuana 13 years ago will stop you from becoming a teacher, or lawyer, or doctor? You don't think your opinions on current and political issues will be used to judge, characterize, classify or otherwise group you in some way?
If you aren't worried about your privacy being invaded, I invite you to disclose your name, address, place of birth, date of birth, SSN, height, weight, eye color, hair color, any aliases, parent's names, spouse's name, childrens names, your occupation, your salary, any mental problems, any financial problems, medical problems(ED?), marital problems, what TV shows you watch, all the names of your ex girlfriends, anything you've even done illegal, what schools you went to, what schools your children go to, did you ever cheat in school, did you ever cheat on a girlfriend, who you've used as babysitters, where you shop, what kind of food you eat, people you hate, people you love, who are your friends, who's on your IM list, who's names are in your phonebook, what kind of car you drive, your license plate number, whether you pick your nose, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, what your stance is on immigration, what your stance on the war in Iraq is, whether you believe waterboarding to be torture, what else, anything that somebody might have an interest in knowing?
"people have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure in there persons and homes."
This is my argument. When your communication leaves this country, it's no longer under the laws of the consitiution. It's no longer 'in there persons and homes'. I do not expect ANY country to respect my privacy once that leaves the borders of my home country. Nor should anyone else.
For all those that think the Dems wanted to kill this bill (and save us and our liberties) are sadly mistaken. I'm a life-long Dem and even I can admit that.
It was really about two powerful special interest groups...
1. Trial lawyers of America - in the Dems hip pocket
2. The Telcos - in the Reps hip pocket
In the last few weeks, both of these special interest groups lobbied (read: bribed) for their version of the bill. Each party just want to protect their biggest campaign contributors and pass their own version of the bill. Once again, it's all about $$$$$ in the eyes of our so-called leaders.
"Additionally, why do telecoms need immunity if they didn't break the law? If the Government is making lawful requests, the telecoms can't refuse, legally. Immunity for the telecoms protects the executive branch. If lawsuits move forward, the Telecoms, to be able to defend themselves, will have to reveal publicly details of their involvement with the Federal Government."
They broke no laws.
They CAN refuse to cooperate and that's what everyone in the country will do if they lose their immunity.
A lawyer can sue you for ANYTHING. If a kid drowns in your pool a lawyer can sue your ass off even if you followed every possible effort at prevention.
Lawsuits and legality have NOTHING to do with one another.
Also, the Constitution was written in a far scarier time than now. What, 3000 people died in the 9-11 attacks. In the revolutionary war, 100000 people died trying to free themselves from an abusive monarchy.
Joe, according to the World Book Encyclopedia, 230,000 lost their lives in the Revolutionary War.
2200 were killed at Pearl Harbor.
Are you saying that 3000 or even 2200 is not enough to get excited about?
If the telecoms are granted retroactive or future immunity; no person in this country will be safe from every type of surveillance, wiretapping, hacking, and many other types of invasions of privacy.
Law abiding citizens and Christians are being targeted even now to gain their personal information for future abuse of their rights.
No company, especially our utility and communications systems should be free from the strictest scrutiny and investigations as they have such power over American citizens.