More > Music, Movies, Politics, and Other Cheap Thrills
Way OT - Makes Me Sad and Angry...
hit_ny:
--- Quote from: JimH on July 10, 2008, 08:30:13 am ---Privacy disappeared a while back. The spying has gone on a long time.
This vote was about protecting the phone companies from lawsuits.
--- End quote ---
Technically yes, but what about the implications of that ruling ?
--- Quote from: JimH on July 10, 2008, 08:30:13 am ---I'd hate to have been in the phone companies' position when the program started up. The government that runs the show demands that you comply. If you do, you risk the lawsuits and embarassing publicity. If you don't, who knows what the government will do to you.
--- End quote ---
Oh I don't know, they got most of their infrastructure handed to them on a plate, which public money built.
You would think they'd be obliged in some way or the other :)
bob:
As John said, not all the phone companies complied with the illegal "request". Qwest's lawyers told them it was illegal and to not comply. They didn't. I'm sure AT&T's and Verizons lawyers aren't totally stupid (they must have gotten some kind of under the table assurance of immunity). There were some government contracts pulled from Qwest after their non-compliance. As with all of these things, simply follow the money trail....
glynor:
--- Quote from: JimH on July 10, 2008, 08:30:13 am ---This vote was about protecting the phone companies from lawsuits.
--- End quote ---
Not true at all. The phone company immunity was a red herring. The press has focused on it because it is easy to explain.
This is what the bill was about: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars
bob:
It's true that the bill's main effect is to allow lots of unconstitutional spying (very likely the SCOTUS will overturn it).
However, the telecom immunity is not a minor matter. From USA today 5/11/2006
"The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million."
Also, Mark Klein blew the whistle on AT&T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein.
He's testified that they were pulling ALL internet and phone traffic from a tap off of the AT&T backbone in SF.
JONCAT:
I understand your point Glynor, but it wasn't went to be a distractor per se. I mean this is a win win for the neo-cons.
What I don't understand is how they (GOP) grant immunity without self-incriminating themselves. The executive prerogative here is off the wall, way beyond what the founders intended. State secrets at risk gets you off the hook? Truly Orwelian. And the oil crisis has begun......a lot of Peak Oil talk on the radio. Two decades of full nation effort needed to prepare for alternatives which ends up mainly being reduction. Getting WAY OT but in light of all this, we're doing this:
--- Quote ---The 114-page bill was pushed through the House so quickly that there was no real time to debate its many complex provisions.
--- End quote ---
from - http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars
Well ....we are a nation at war, well an unauthorized one at least ;D
DC
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version