State and Federal Governents Clash on NSA Snooping 75
An anonymous reader writes "In what could set the stage for an indirect decision over the NSA domestic surveillance program, The Justice Department has threatened the state of Maine with a lawsuit should the state's Public Utilities Commission investigate complaints from Maine customers that Verizon, by cooperating with the NSA without their customers' consent, violated privacy laws. Maine's PUC is expected to make its decision today.
(More from the article below.)
From the linked article:
"Verizon may have broken the law, and the Department of Justice is overstepping its bounds in trying to intimidate the state PUC from investigating the potential violation," said Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union. "And I do think it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for the federal government to threaten to sue the state, (which is) merely doing its job."
(More from the article below.)
The Maine complaint, filed in May by 22 Verizon customers, is one of several similar cases around the country. The cases were sparked by news reports alleging that phone companies have cooperated with government surveillance efforts by providing the domestic phone call records of millions of Americans.
In Vermont, where state officials are considering whether to open an investigation of Verizon and AT&T, the Justice Department has come down against the idea. The department has filed lawsuits to prevent the disclosure of information in New Jersey and Missouri."
how dare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how dare (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:civil war (Score:1)
I recall having a conversation - when I was working on a political (presidential) campaign many years ago - with Zbig Bryzynski (probably got that spelling wrong, but I'm sure some neocon roger-dodger will correct me), who predicted that state lines will cease to exist about this time. I recall (in ag
Re:civil war (Score:2, Insightful)
The first shots were fired at Waco and Ruby Ridge. The counterstrike came in Oklahoma city.
Yes, these were wingnuts (including the government forces), but the wingnuts always have furnished the canaries.
See John Brown. His body is a-mouldrin' in the grave, but his soul goes marching on.
Bear in mind that I'm no right wing wingnut myself. On "the test" I share a data point with the Dalai Lama. I'm not promoting the idea of civil war, but I got eyes and ears and I can see it
Re:civil war (Score:1)
That too has already all but happened but the shooting.
When asked if he belonged to an organized political party, Will Rogers replied, "No, I'm a Democrat."
There's a lot of talk about "Red States" vs. "Blue States," and it's all hogwash. Just look at the map from the last election. There is, indeed, a cohesive "Red Country," but there are three seperate "Blue Countries" who have absolutely nothing in common, either philosophically or geographically, except noni
Re:civil war (Score:1)
Re:civil war (Score:1)
You have introduced terms that I:
a) Did not
b) Would not
KFG
the GOP will protect us! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know - along with smaller government and less federal spending.
Right?
Whenever I hear a Republican utter the phrase "tax and spend Democrat," I almost bust a gut laughing (and crying inside) thinking about the current deficit.
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:2)
If we could only get a party that CUT SPENDING.....then cut taxes...
If we could only get a party that CUT SPENDING.... (Score:2)
then cut taxes...
There is one political party that will do both at the same tyme, the Libertarian Party [lp.org].
FalconRe:the GOP will protect us! (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen brother, preach it (Score:2, Insightful)
When Reagan came in, he really got interest rates down, but he started borrowing money like crazy and the deficit went way, way, way up.
At the time, everyone except the people living off of interest were very happy with Reagan because of the drop of double-digit interest rates into the single digits.
But the deal is, because nobody felt the borrowing at the
Re:Amen brother, preach it (Score:1)
That is exactly my stance too. It's like you took the words right out of my mouth, uncanny. Eitherway I see both parties as just tring to seperate me from my money, one party does it one way, the other party does it another way. Same crap, different method.
Say wha?!? (Score:2)
I remember people buying houses in 1988, Reagan's last year in office, with 20% mortgages. A lot of people seem to forget that.
Re:Say wha?!? (Score:1)
Ummm, but wikipedia shows this:
-=-=
During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988
-=-=-
Now Reagan still screwed us, saying he wanted less government, but creating a huge deficit. It is just that, the defecit comes out of our children's pockets, so nobody felt it at the time. Taking money out of your pocket = BAD. Taking money out of your c
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:2)
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:1)
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:3, Insightful)
I could never vote 100% libertarian, but I would much rather have the house/senate split 50/50 democ
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:1)
That was exactly my point. Some people view it as an encumberance, some as freedom.
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:2)
I agree that the government (federal government specifically) has way to much control and power, but at the same time I see the value in simple social government programs that can provide (relative) safety, health and human services, and help use to avoid "tragedy of commons" situations. Which is why I see a Libertarian/Democrat 2 party mix as being muc
Re:the GOP will protect us! (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing with you, and I agree fully. I *like* having men in missle silos protecting me. I like the police, Fire and EMS staff that could save my rear someday. I like educating the future so that
stat3es rights and small government (Score:2)
Don't worry - States' rights is a major part of the Republican platform.
You know - along with smaller government and less federal spending.
Yeah, right. That's why republicans took the nation from it's biggest budget surplus to it's biggest deficit. And it's also why they created the Department of Fatherland, er Motherland, er Homeland Security.
FalconOh how things change (Score:5, Insightful)
All I can think now is that line from V for Vendetta: "There's something terribly wrong with this country."
Re:Oh how things change (Score:2, Informative)
Even if you don't donate money, they're on top of the issue and can tell you when a call to your congresscritter be most effective.
Re:Oh how things change (Score:5, Insightful)
The bulk of Americans couldn't care less because the bulk of Americans aren't very aware of it. They're not very aware of it because they get their information primarily from the mass media. The mass media isn't covering it because the mass media is in favor of it. Or, more precisely, the owners of the mass media are.
Fascism is, by definition, very friendly to big business. Friendlier by far than a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. A government in which the ruler(s) stay in power for decades is, to such people, more stable and more predictable, and thus more easily managed and thus more desirable, than one in which the players can change every few years. I dare say that many/most of those who own big businesses like the mass media want fascism and are doing what they can to make it happen, because it promises to give them greater power than what they have right now (whether or not it will do so in the end remains to be seen).
And, depressingly, the trend towards fascism is happening throughout the world. This, too, isn't surprising, because it promises to benefit those who own the large multinational corporations.
Re:Oh how things change (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, this is precisely what we were warned about in the 1980's when Regan did away with the FCC's "fairness doctrine" and began to erode media ownership rules so that media outlets could be consolidated into fewer and fewer large players.
Very funny - that everything that has come to pass (including 9/11, if you think about it, or if you had read PNAC's website prior to 2001) was pretty much foretold - and discredited as "liberal whining".
Re:Oh how things change (Score:2)
This is just not true. When the wiretap story broke, the NYT, WaPo, LAT, Globe, et al ran front page stories, usually multiple days worth, about the story. Our local papers covered it, our regional paper covered it. Our local news covered it, CNN covered it, FNC covered it. Every blog covered it, it was a headline on Yahoo's news page a
Re:Oh how things change (Score:2)
Re:Oh how things change (Score:2)
I assume you're basing this on the lack of daily major news coverage. But, in fact, without an accurate poll, there's no way to know that most people don't care. I actually think more than half of the population does care. They just don't know what to do about it until Nov 2008. See Bush's ratings in the polls for some reference.
Re:Oh how things change (Score:2)
I hope you meant 2006.
Re:Oh how things change (Score:2)
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
States can propose Ammendments too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:States can propose Ammendments too (Score:1)
Re:States can propose Ammendments too (Score:2)
Maybe the NSA can figure out who stole the "M" (Score:2)
Federal government vs. enough states = (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully this will restir the notion of state's rights, because it's obvious when all of the power is condensed into one entity, the stage is set for massive abuse.
The founding fathers knew this. Society seems to have forgotten this. We need a clash of the titans like this to hopefully reawaken some interest in maintaining the sanctity of our rights and freedoms.
Re:Federal government vs. enough states = (Score:1)
It is a good point, and the issue needs to be pressed very hard. The government must be reigned in and the proper steps taken to avoid such rampant disregard for the constitution and rights of citizens.
Re:Federal government vs. enough states = (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Federal government vs. enough states = (Score:2)
If other states see Maine getting trampled, they'll realize they could be next, and will hopefully band together for a legal solution, not attempt secession.
That confrontation predicts a win. (Score:2)
Eh, the states in favor of strong states rights thought the same thing in 1861. I guess 11 isn't "enough".
That was a case of property rights which violated other more basic rights and, worse, economically threatened all of the other more populous and numerous states. This case is not that much different if you consider the economic risk everyone is under when their communications company treats them like slaves. The risk of economic espionage that comes from this violation of your privacy puts much mor
Re:That confrontation predicts a win. (Score:2)
People compl
Re:That confrontation predicts a win. (Score:2)
I agree; remove the federal income tax completely, and let the feds get money from the states. The states could then withhold their funding to the federal level, for some aspects (some money MUST be given). The problem with states being able to totally shut down the feds, is that th
Re:Federal government vs. enough states = (Score:2)
Maine is investigating Verizon for criminal activity not the USG (Unites States Government), the feds are sueing to prevent the disclosure of the information
sounds to me that verizon is between the rock and the hard place. They can refu
Let it all happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? The people in this country have something to say about the current state of things but have yet to act upon what the morals that govern them. They talk about how wrong the President is but yet they vote him into office again. They shout " I don't want my phone tapped," but they do it in the comfort of their home where they can't be arrested. They say "let us be moral and leaders of the free world," yet they think "a little bit of torture never hurt anyone as long as its in Cuba." And here we are - you and I paying our taxes and showing our teeth like its all okay.
We can sit here and piss and moan about this all day long but until smart people like most of the folks here at slashdot do something, it's all yapping and no substance. No one can ever say that anything got accomplished right the first time by a leader who leads from the back of the bus or that a bunch of grumbling average joes got something done. You might as well be telling 'You're Mama's So Fat Jokes' than wasting you're time talking to the TV as you sit on your fat ass eating Salsa Verde Dorritoes.
So go ahead and mod me down or call me a troll because I don't care. Someone needs to tell America the truth and stand up for whats right. I'm moving to Maine...
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:2, Insightful)
The people in this country have something to say about the current state of things but have yet to act upon what the morals that govern them. They talk about how wrong the President is but yet they vote him into office again. They shout " I don't want my phone tapped," but they do it in the comfort of their home where they can't be arrested. They say "let us be moral and leaders of the free world," yet they think "a little bit of torture never hurt anyone
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:2)
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:1)
What a load of crap. I've seen many posts recently which advocate that position, but it's pure BS. If you're advocating assassination of government officials, you must be crazy. Aside from the obvious problems of legality, morality, and ethical legitimacy of such action, it would probably only make things worse. The problem isn't just an individual in the administration. And it's not just the executive branch, either; aside fr
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:2)
Actually, the founders would probably argue there's no moral or ethical issues in this action; indeed they may see it as the ethical and moral thing to do. They DID kill the people taking away their freedoms, did they not? As far as legality goes, well, that's a non-issue. Laws which restrict freedoms are immoral anyway. Laws made by a corrupt goverment are not laws to b
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:1)
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:1)
Re:Bravo Maine! Down with Everyone Else (Score:2)
The answer would be yes, you should. This is how progress was made in the civil rights movement. However, its not feasible today. You get arrested and jailed, and that's all people want to hear. You MUST have done something wrong, criminal. Very sad, really.
moving to Maine (Score:2)
Someone needs to tell America the truth and stand up for whats right. I'm moving to Maine...
You're moving to the wrong state though it is near the state you should move to, New Hampshire. Join the Freestate Project [freestateproject.org].
FalconA Sad State of Affairs (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually its 920 Photos called into question (Score:1)
Can the PUC pull Verizon's charter for this? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is to say, quite aside from the question of whether or not Verizon is guilty of wrongdoing in the matter of the wiretapping, it seems reasonable that a refusal to cooperate with the Public Utilities Commission investigation would itself be grounds for the commission to rescind Verizon's monopoly privilege in the state.
Since I haven't done anything wrong, why are you.. (Score:2)
A double security to the people ... (Score:5, Informative)
-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 17 June 1788)
Reference: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., vol. 2 (28)
Please post full text. (Score:1)
Re:Please post full text. (Score:1)