Wiretap Ruling Threatens Telecoms 501
ches_grin writes "Yesterday's ruling on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems. The judge's decision clearly dismissed out of hand the arguments of the telecoms, saying that the protections due journalists and lawyers was a clear matter of the public's best interests." From the article: "Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore. 'Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement,' says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. 'There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective.'"
What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Interesting)
What a novel concept!
Let's try this: Let's conspire with a telecom provider to monitor government employee's communications and try to figure out what the government is thinking and what they're doing. Then, we'll blow the story all over the media and claim immunity based on something we just made up. We can claim that we were just making sure the federal government wasn't doing anything wrong and that if they weren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to worry or press charges. I wonder if the telecom provider and those involved would be prosecuted.
Oh, and we'll use a recent event to justify our actions. Like the war in Iraq. Yeah, uh, we need to make sure no one in the government is conspiring to start another war based on false information. That's it, that's why we need to monitor your communications.
If the government is taking actions like these that are illegal for us to take ourselves, it's starts to sound less like we're on equal footing with the government and more like the government is demanding we "do what they say not what they do." Does anyone else remember back in the day when the United States was a government of the people, by the people and for the people? None of these recent NSA actions sound "for" the people. More like "against" with what should be serious legal repercussions. What the hell ever happened to a weak federal government with strong local governments? That was the basic idea for our government I thought. Instead we have some backwards beltway insiders pushing everyone around while my local county and city governments try to figure out what the hell "PC Load Letter" means.
I say we jail those responsible (government directors and telecom CEOs who oversaw it) just as any citizen who tried the same thing would be jailed.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage.
<neocon>
Because Bush is wiretapping the country to save us from the terrorists! The terrorists!!! You remember the terrorists, don't you? Aren't you still afraid??? FEAR!!! Fearing another terrorist attack and surrendering our freedoms and rights is the only way to safeguard us from the terrorists!
</neocon>
Getting used to Newspeak (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep!
It looks like most people already got used to Newspeak nowadays...
The Frightened Folks on the Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Frightened Folks on the Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't champion the Brits for their respect for their citizens rights. They've passed laws that are much harsher than any in the U.S. Not sure they outlaw spying on their citizens in the first place. The law broken by the NSA has only been in place since the 1970's in the U.S. The U.S. was rampantly spying on its citizens before then.
The most recent was called the Prevention of Terrorism Act [wikipedia.org] and was passed in an illadvised frenzy after the subway bombings, kind of like the Patriot Act.
In a previous "terrorism" investigation British law enforcement murdered an innocent Brazilian electrician claiming he was a terrorist which is pretty much the ultimate form of "breaking the law". He apparently just had the misfortune to be living near a place under investigation, looking Arab, and being an illegal immigrant who was afraid of the police. The police officials lied through their teeth about the whole thing after they murdered him.
Some examples of recent British antiterrorism law that really read more like "police state":
- The British government can lock up anyone incommunicado for 28 days without charges being filed.
- The British can slap a control order on you without convicting you of anything. Control orders can impose curfews, limit who you associate with, limit religious freedom, prevent you from having a cell phone, using the Internet, or where you work, they are basically a form of preemptive probation they can slap on anyone they merely suspect of being a potential terrorists whether they are or not.
- You can be arrested for expressing opinions or selling books in support of "terrorists". The government also gets to decide who is and who isn't a terrorist so they get to decide what causes their citizens can and can't support, for example championing the cause of Palestinians is very chancy in Britain now.
- An earlier law passed in the wake of 9/11 allowed the Brits to hold a resident alien suspected of terrorism indefinitely without trial.
The Brits were an originator of habeas corpus, due process, in the Magna Carta 790 years ago only to throw it away in the last 5.
Quite predictably, using the liquid explosives busts as an excuse, the Bush administration has been campaigning they need the same laws the Brits have to make us safe, though the British laws would be completely unconstitutional in the U.S.
I'd really wait to see how successful the supposed liquid explosive investigation proves to be when its all said and done. Its a lot easier for the government to use the media megaphone to trumpet their success in breaking up a terrorist ring than it is to actually prove there was one, or for it to be as real a threat as its been made out to be. The practicality of bringing down an airliner with small quantities of liquids mixed on board is unproven. You can cause an explosion, which Al Qaeda did in their previous attempt dubbed "Bojinka", but its not clear it would be enough to bring down an airliner. In their dry run a decade ago they killed one passenger but didn't damage the airplane to any serious degree. I wager that in this case like so many before it the overreaction will do more damage than the plot would have. The Brits are making airline travel so painful many people are having second thoughts about it, which translates in to real and lasting economic damage.
Reference the "terrorism" plot the U.S. broke up in Michigan where a couple Arab looking guys were buying cell phones in quantity to resell in Texas for a small profit. U.S. law enforcement inflated it in to a terrorist plot to blow up a bridge in Michigan. It was insane, it wasn't good law enforcement or good counter terrorism. They made life living hell for a few guys for NO REASON. In the U.S. we are approaching an election where the ruling
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Nixon was illegally wiretapping to save us from the democrats! The democrats!!! You remember the democrats, don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm no.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you should blame the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution for my attitude. By the way - I served my county in the Marines for 4 years. What have you ever given back? I don't even know why I am bothering to respond to you anyway. Troll.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is more important than life itself, which is why our founders and those that followed fought a war. I'm sure you'd be safe from terrorists in the old Soviet Union as well. You're replacing one threat (terrorist) with an even bigger one (uncontrolled government).
If you're worried about preventing deaths, why not crusade against cars? Car accidents cause much more death than any terrorist. Indeed, you're more likely to die of heart disease than a terrorists bomb.
How you can call the judge an idiot is beyond me; the government ADMITTED THEY WERE TAPPING!! It wasn't just her feeling, they said loud and clear "Yes, we are conducting massive un-warranted wiretaps."
Dude, learn to think, worry about things that actually have a good chance of killing you, like cancer and heart disease.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel compelled to support the parent of this post and a few above it in their noting that it is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and just plain TERRORISTIC of the US Government to be tapping calls without a warrant. For those who argue that there is a foreign danger, they simply do not understand what is going on. This program was never aimed at the foreign threat. It was aimed at domestic suppression. It wasn't targeted at any terrorism purpose unless you view citizens exercising their rights as terrorists towards a criminal government. I have read the RFP's on these programs. They were not limited tapping for terrorism. It was tapping everything everywhere all the time and forever.
There can only be one rational explanation of why these people wanted to avoid the special courts set up to handle proper warrants. They were against the law and for bad purpose since the special courts give very nearly carte blanche to the government requests. This is prima facia evidence of a government going far out of its way and starting to act as a Terrorist itself. In point of fact is is running a MAFIA PROTECTION RACKET. For those who don't understand, you set up a terror condition and sell protection. In this case the mobster has the luxury of not even having to hire the enforcer since Al Qaeda and others will provide the terror for the ordinary people and they just shake us down of trillions of dollars in taxes.
Please wake up people. Hurricane Katrina Relief on the US Gulf Coast (2005) has amounted to 220,000 homes needing recovery help. The current expenditures of the US Feds is $178 Billion. That breaks down for those who cannot use a calculator to $809,090 per home. The homes are not rebuilt folks and volunteers are still cleaning up. This govenment is stealing Billions of dollars every place it can from the American People. The current administration fears it will be found out and properly opposed. This is why they are doing their data acquistion programs. They are planning terror if we oppose them. Doubt me? Look at what they do every time there is an argument against them. Look and see if they have actually been effective anywhere at any time for stopping terror. They have not been. They refuse to clean up the US border situation and in point of fact are the prime instigators of the trouble. They accused community watch types (The Minuteman Project [minutemanproject.com]) of being terrorists.
Well we citizens are terrorists to these criminals. If we wake up and put them in jail their reign will be over. Do not make anything partizan out of this. This is pure citizenship.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, the only way the government knows that these people might be linked with Al Quaeda is through the program. They didn't start wiretapping because they knew of the links, they know of the links because they started wiretapping.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Long ago, in a discussion forum far away, I brought up the Onion's clever response to the idea of linking with their headline "Kevin Bacon linked to Osama bin Laden". This led to someone defining a "bin-Laden number" similar to the "Bacon number", the number of in-same-movie hops that it takes to get from person X t Osama.
It turned out that both George Bushes have a bi-Laden number of 1. They've both appeared in movies with him. The movies are documentarie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ramtek, I think the parent was using common sense.
First a disclaimer: I work for an American television network in the news division. You will not see my commentary on our news report because we have been pandering to this Administration (and no, we're not Fox, which does not do news).
The Bush administration's talking point is to say that these people (being wiretapped) are calling Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda is calling them.
The reason why we have a judge approve a wiretap is to provide for a check on this ve
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Insightful)
Since I didn't vote for him, I have to draw the conclusion that he and his gang consider me a terrorist. Could he have said this any more clearly? So any time he says anything about what he'd like to do to terrorists, he's talking about what he'd like to do to me.
Is there any reason I should conclude differently?
It's not hard to imagine what other people in other countries were thinking when they heard this comment, especially the ones who might have made anti-Bush comments in the past.
Uh, no. Nixon's administration did more than that (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, and there were about 28,000 GIs killed in Viet Nam, not to mention about a quarter of a million Vietnamese.
I suppose those dead people didn't count in the indictments... nor the resignation of Spiro Agnew for tax fraud-- his vice president.
Now, between Bush Jr and Sr, we have about 600,000 Iraqis dead, 3,500+ of our troops.
So there's wiretapping incideous habeas corpus violations, and heavens knows what else in the Bush administration.
Nixon = Bush (Score:5, Informative)
- Creation of the E.P.A.
- Ending engagement in Vietnam
- Opening China to diplomatic relations, including their induction as a UN member state
- Singning of the SALT treaty and the ABM treaty with the soviets
- Embracing and signing-off on the NASA STS program
- Elimination of the "Gold Standard" of US Currency allowing more natural currency flux
No matter what, you can't seperate Nixon from Watergate. But he isn't anywhere near the worst president we've had. And in a way, watergate helped America. A healthy distrust for government is a good thing.
This world would've been a much better place today had RFK not been shot. He would've ate Nixons lunch in a general election and the course of history would've been changed. I'm a big blue-stater but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As for the accomplishments you've listed, some of them are suspect. The China deal was a very self-serving effort to build
Re:Uh, no. Nixon's administration did more than th (Score:5, Interesting)
We've gotten much more efficient at killing people. So our tax dollars are being used for something productive, we just didn't know it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is something we should be proud of?
This isn't a video game, and many of those dead (like the Viet Namese before them) are nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of the military.
Besides, it's not your tax dollars, or mine, paying for this. It'll be the taxes of our sons and daughters, and likely their sons and daughters, that will pay for this ill conceived and poorly execute
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it has a lot to do with motivation. Many people feel that the Government/Bush is doing what it/he can (sometimes misdirected) to thwart terrorist attacks. Whether or not you agree with the wisdom of his decisions, it's hard to fault the motivation and gin up some "outrage".
Nixon's was clearly a case of playing unethical (and illegal) tricks on a political opponent.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find ironic is that many people who were against the Nixon administration (which did similar things to the Bush adminstration) actually support the Bush adminstration. Almost as if their disillusionment with the political system wore off once they actually had to support a family.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing nothing like that happened when Bush got 'elected.' Or when his VP and Chief of Staff leaked Valerie Plame's occupation. Or when he ignores parts of laws he doesn't like with his 'signing statements.' Or when he led the country to a ruinously expensive war based on wishful thinking and fat checks to his VP's former company.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll reiterate:
The US government must think that Americans are lazy, brainless sheep who will shut out even the most obvious evidence that criminals are running the country. I mean seriously, only the most idiotic... Oh look! American Idol is on!
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that saying that came out after 9/11, how if we don't do this or that, the terrorists have won? Well, they did win. Life in American will never be the same again.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the single point that pisses me off the most.
Remember when Bush stood on the rubble pile there right after the attack and said that we would not allow the terrorists to change our way of life?
Now, we only find out 4 years later (last year) that he was arranging to rob us of our Constitutional rights, as those words came out of his mouth. Too bad we found out so late in the game, or I wouldnt have likely voted for him again.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4)
Now, this kind of incredibly deluded intellectual dishonesty is what is killing this country.
*We* did find out long along ago.
All of this was clearly going to be the result of a vote for Bush *in 2000*. Had you done anything at all to inform yourself about Bush, his friends associates and people he was courting for his cabinet then you would have already known this a long fucking time ago.
"We" didn't find out late in the game. You wilfully ignored every relevant fact for 6 fucking years. I knew in 2000 that a vote for Bush was a vote to invade Iraq and nothing else. You would have too if you had taken your responsibility as a citizen seriously.
You don't have a god damned leg to stand on or any right to be "pissed" about any of this.
It's your fucking fault for not doing your god damned duty as a citizen and informing yourself before twice voting for the worst traitor in American history.
So, I'm glad you're finally starting to wake up and pay attention, but don't you dare pretend any of this is new news.
Don't you fucking dare pretend that this isn't *exactly* what you voted for.
Seriously, the complete lack of personal responsibility you demonstrated in your post is endemic to the ignorant masses who voted for this douche bag.
So don't you fucking dare pretend that you're all surprissed and pissed off.
You caused this situation.
Until you can honestly look at yourself and take responsibility for what *you* unleashed on this country due to your unwillingness to do your job, then nothing will change.
Until you can figure out how you were so easilly fooled by blatantly obvious techniques that have been used repeatedly throughout history while people were telling you what was going on the whole time and you actually learn something from your easilly avoidable mistake, then you will be fooled over and over again as you already were in 2000 and 2004.
Seriously, take responsibility for your own actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the gist of your message, but I just wanted to point out that as much as we slashdotters like to jeer at American Idol watchers, we're no better. How many of us play WoW? How many of us watch ESPN or play sports? Well, scratch that last one. =P Entertainment--any entertainment--is a a distraction; from the most banal (American Idol) to the most intellectual (Tinkering with the Linux kernal).
This isn't the only case where we are very hypocritical, though. Look at your sig and its disdain o
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to drive a truck that, when babied, got a whole 18 mpg. City driving made it plummet quickly into the 12mgp range. Most sports cars (unless it's got a V10-V12) get better fuel economy than this. In fact, some of the innovations in sports cars (the Audi R10 for one) increase fuel economy.
On the note of fuel economy, and the like, what is the point of 10% ethanol gas. My car runs worse, gets less mpg (around 10% less mpg). Is it just an excuse to dilute the fuel, and charge the same for it? I know it reduces emissions, but when I have to use more to go the same distance, it seems like it isn't doing anything helpful. Much like the "hybrid" cars, that cost you more than they'll ever save you in fuel (fuel savings for 3 years is usually around $3000, the replacement battery in 3 years is around $3500-$4000), and the technology to make the batteries is also harmful to the environment.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Funny)
"Everyone screams that they want a government that listens to its people. We did that, and then y'all turn around and ask the us to stop listening. What gives? Make up your minds, or maybe it's time for us to just dissolve the people and elected a new one!"
- Your Government
What do you have to hide, dude? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am shocked, saddened and disgusted by the news each day. Obviously many of us would like to see our present governments replaced with more democratic and accountable institutions. But how? Protesting seems not to work, and so many are apathetic to any kind of truth. There really does need to be more public outcry, perhaps we need to see more anti-Vietnam types of scenes? What do we need to do to convert raised awareness into actions that will get Bush and Blair etc voted out of office?
Or perhaps I just need to move to Cuba where the government might allow me some more freedom, and at least the weather's nice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, outrage rarely impacts political decision making at this level without an impending election, and this president does not face another election. We teetered at 50/50 around both of the elections Bush survived, but by now less than one third of Americans support this president and this country's "direction." There is outrage, and plenty of it, but it doesn't much matter.
Our "leaders" are much more "practical" than that.
On practicality: Nixon ducked out because Congress was not his own, a
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062153/ [imdb.com]
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as simple as that, the NSA has a certain degree of authority that they most certainly abused. If a government agency that high up came to you and told you to do something that wouldn't really affect your company financially would you do it? I assume that the telcos thought they would be in way more trouble if they didn't comply, the NSA would make them their enemies (Would you want to be on the bad side of the NSA?) that the media would tear them apart for assisting "terrorists". As an informed slashdottter, I am appalled. From a business and PR perspective, I can sympathize.
The true evil here is the NSA, while it is a common stratagy for the executive branch to pretend it has more power than it does, these guys took it way too far. Don't get me wrong I think the telcos should have thought a bit longer, hopefully they will get some sort of punishment so there is more of an incentive for companies to think before they comply with a government request.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, it's better than that. I'm sure the telcos profitted from the arrangement. That is to say, the gubmint paid the telcos to do their dirty work for them! Yes, that's your money the telcos took to spy on you!
Re:Extremely OT (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually.. a real war with a quantifiable enemy and a well defined end-point.
In this case though, what it will take is descent into dicatatorship. It's unfortunate, but people will not wake up until they no longer have easy access to bread and circuses, and they realize that they can no longer afford to ignore their government. That, unfortunately, doesn't seem to happen until their day to day life becomes so odious that they are FORCED to take action.
Limited Government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically these people are members of the party that claims to champion a limited federal government that operates for not against the people. They campaigned on the very idea of shrinking government and reducing its invasiveness. They have reduced education and social spending (mostly through crippling unfunded mandates). They have left the science budget the same but selectively trimmed spending on some subjects e.g. Global Warming. But when it comes to spying on Americans and invading others no amount is too high and no law apparently can stand.
Not even Richard Nixon went around claiming that he was just "above the law because he says so" but apparently these people think that it is a valid legal principle.
This isn't flamebait, I'm being serious, the only other times that I can think of where anyone claimed such a thing (rule of law but my word is above all law) was the old Russian Tsars after Katherine the Great, and Adolf Hitler who had the "Furher's Princip". Again this isn't flamebait it is frightening.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Richard Nixon *did* believe that the president's actions were always legal, by definition: [landmarkcases.org]
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do somethi
Are you at war? (Score:3, Informative)
If "war" can be used as a justification for additional powers make no mistake: they wil
Re:Limited Government. (Score:4, Interesting)
Proving that something is within the President's power is revealing a state secret? I thought all of the President's powers were enumerated in the Constitution. He now has secret powers that nobody can know about? That is EXACTLY the kind of "President's Prerogative" that the Furher's Princip is all about.
From the Wikipedia article:
This is a time when it IS appropriate and no hyperbole of any kind was introduced.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. I doubt anyone alive today remembers 1788 all that well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't see these recent events as anything different than has happened in the past. From the view of the NSA, knowing everything you that everybody does helps to protect the masses. You should have no doubt that the NSA was, in fact, really trying to combat national security threats with these wiretaps. You s
Poorly worded (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, just curious. What about the protections due to us average citizens, or don't we count anymore?
Re:Poorly worded (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poorly worded (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a liability for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This 'victory' will last exactly as long as it takes the appeal to get to the SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
can raping the constitution be considered treason because it is aiding the terrorists in destroying america?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
can SCOTUS justices be impeached for treason?
Indeed...and it's been done before [utexas.edu] (albeit unsuccessfully in this particular case).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be silly, given all the unconstitutional/illegal things he has admitted (even bragged) about doing.
Not at all correct. As Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Papers [uchicago.edu], impeachment of judges for rulings which go against the intent of congress is an essential part of the c [amnation.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's only a liability for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they capitulate, then we know that we really lost. And that those terrorists, eleven murderous zealots, really won. If the check of the judiciary is that emasculated then liberty in America is truly dead.
Big Brother (Score:2)
Oh, hold on a minute.
Did we win this one!?
Extortion? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Well, you LET me do it! It's your fault!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Extortion? (Score:5, Informative)
It has been widely reported that Qwest refused to comply with these requests on concern of their legality. And the administration did nothing about it because there was nothing for them to do. "Hey, give us a direct connection to your customers' personal data." "Sure thing, where's your subpeona?" "Oh, we're not doing that, we have the authority to ask for this data without any judicial oversight." "Oh wow, who gave you that authority?" "We did." What are they going to do if you say no, ask a judge to make you comply? Oh my, irony! Not only did they do nothing to Qwest, they said nothing about it because they have been applying every possible delaying tactic, including imposing as much secrecy as possible, to put off this day of reckoning. Not only is "because some bureaucrat told me to" not a good excuse for breaking the law, it is the worst excuse, exactly the kind of cowardly capitulation that leads to the worst sort of government corruption. Nobody deserves a free pass on this craven, cynical assault on the principles of freedom.
(on preview, the captcha for my sign-in was "conspire." Damn, they're on to me).
reminds me of a saying.... (Score:2)
Help the feds and get your but sued off by your customers, or dont help the feds and run the risk of pissing off the powers that be. I can understand how the telco's are in a serious pickle over this, since both sides will start screaming "do what we say, the law is on our side"
How do we fix this? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Democrats would be different in 2006 (Score:2)
Re:The Democrats would be different in 2006 (Score:4, Insightful)
Also do not vote based on a single issue. Regardless of what you may think of the abortion issue basing a decition as important as who you vote for on that single issue is STUPID. If politician X agrees with me on 8 of 10 issues I find important and disagrees on 2, and politician Y agrees with 2 and disagrees on 8, why the hell would I pick Y even if those 2 where "hot button" issues? Yet oh so many Americans do.
I think it will start a bad presidence. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is similar to a situation where a policeman stops you and tells you to run that stop sign so they can give you a ticket or they will arrest you, on some charge like failure to cooperate with an officer. So what do you do, just get and pay the ticket because getting arrested is much more of a hassle and fighting it will take more of your time (lost work etc...) or stand up for what is right and get arrested and fight it, even though you will loose days or weeks of work costing you more then what the ticket would bring.
What will probably happen is these companies will in turn sue the NSA, for their damages, such as the smart thing would do is fight the traffic ticket and also sue for unlawful conduct by the police, and get some extra for your expenses.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I respectfully disagree with your position, here's why:
The more people who enter into the mindset of "Oh well, even if I know it's wrong, I'm gonna do it becuase it's less of a hassle", the more power is given to people like those who make up the Bush administration.
This isn't about party-line politics; it's about the fundamental principles this country was founded on. Primarily the freedom from the invasion of one's privacy by a tyrannical government
is there a middleground? (Score:3, Interesting)
The only middle ground is in the level of punishment.
This isn't true in all cases. For instance there are heavy minimium sentencing requirements for drug offenses. Someone caught with illegal drugs can spend more tyme in prison even when they didn't harm anyone than someone who violently harms someone else will.
FalconRe:I think it will start a bad presidence. (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, think of the companies! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're in a bad position? Oh, the poor corporations! We, the people, have for generations had to fight and die to defend our freedoms, but the new "Corporate people" who demand all the rights of citizenship might get stuck paying a fine or something if they refuse to actively break the law! The horror! The unfairness of it all!
I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders. That way, it becomes a no brainer to say "No way!" the next time you are asked to betray the nation at the behest of a few power hungry elected officials or their minions.
That, or we could just give 'em a pass this time and hope that they've learned their lesson...
--MarkusQ
Re:I think it will start a bad presidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. And your police example isn't appropriate. Nothing is done in big business or big government without paperwork. These telecoms are REQUIRED to ask for the paperwork. They each have a department full of lawyers who would tell every employee, "Make sure to get the paperwork to cover our asses."
What's the worst the government would do to the telecoms for not complying? Raise their FCC license fees? Every one of those telecom employees who complied and is a US citizen conspired with the government to impinge on the rights of fellow citizens. I hope they get sued for every last dollar they earned while trampling over our rights.
It's hard to blame the telecoms. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Makes you wonder how often they allow wiretapping without a warrant, doesn't it? Clearly they had no problem with it.
What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about Bush's administration?Are they going to get something even equal to a wristslap.
As much as I like the idea of blase corporations getting reamed in the hilt..
punishing one party(which is the subservient one) while the main offender(bush) is still scott free.. what exactly is the message that's going to be sent to corporations and business.
Unsure of their options.. the one's they'll take is quite likely the ones that are detrimental to people.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Informative)
USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
and maybe even
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I say we make an example of them all. They like to make examples of others.
nuremberg (Score:2)
Yeah, but when has the "I was just following orders" defense ever worked, really?
Exciting !!! Back to the old days ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well thats a relief.
Don't worry, it will be overturned. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Threatens telecoms"? Two words. (Score:2, Funny)
A victory. 'til it's overturned (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll try to keep an eye on this to find out just how long it takes until that matter is "settled" (read: Drowned in enough red tape to be grinding to a halt), and at what body it will perish. Because if this matter is turned down and not even investigated, as I expect, the separation of powers in the US is dead. When the executive branch can do what it wants without being held in check by the supreme court, the transformation to a police state is finished.
Public's best interests being the operative words (Score:5, Informative)
Here you have it: freedom > security.
Punish the victims? (Score:2, Insightful)
What
I almost feel bad for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any reason to think that the telcos went along cheerfully? If so, unleash the lawyers^Whounds. However, I can easily imagine them being subject to pressures I'd rather avoid.
Mind Your Own Business (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we offer users security from surveillence out of our obligation to ourselves for avoiding liability when the government abuses our cooperation? Or even just protecting ourselves from lawsuits which will fail but cost expenses/time, or just the ill will of the market? Qwest communications apparently did not cooperate with the NSA domestic spying program. Did they make the only good business decision of all their competitors?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How come Qwest could refuse such an order?
I don't think any telco fatcat or FBI fascist is going to jail over this terrible crime. I do think that cablecos competing with these telcos will have a field day. Since they run the 24hr news networks,
Companies can legally deny this (Score:4, Insightful)
"Companies are permitted by US securities law (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) to refrain from properly accounting for their use of assets in matters involving national security, when properly authorized by an agency or department head acting under authorization by the President. This legalese essentially means that companies can falsify their accounting reports and lie about their activities when the President decides that it is in the interests of national security to do so. President Bush issued a presidential memorandum on May 5, 2006 delegating authority to make such a designation to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, just as the NSA call database scandal appeared in the media." [Emphasis mine]
"But I was only following orders!" (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're damned it you don't (they'll arrest you right away if you refuse), and you're damned if you do (you'll be up on civil or criminal charges later when it's determined that you were asked to do an illegal thing). In this system, you can't win.
Mind you, companies like AT&T have a lot of lawyers and a lot of power. But even they can't refuse completely. If you refuse to do what the NSA says, they will find a judge to issue an order to close down your business a LOT quicker than you can find another judge to rule their orders illegal. Oh, and then there are the various appeals processes that draw it out, leaving you in legal limbo for years.
Up until the moment that your orders are found illegal, refusing to follow those orders is the only thing illegal.
It's all moot (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how quickly congress will act (Score:3, Insightful)
Warrantless Eavesdropping Timeline (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Warrantless Eavesdropping Timeline (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, apparently you didnt read it then, here is one... Note the :"excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" 1980 A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)). The decision will influence interpretations of FISA language "the purpose" of surveillance is to collect foreign intelligence information as meaning "the primary purpose".
I read the entire article that you linked to. As I said, the article you linked to mentions no presidents other than George W Bush who authorizing surveillance of Americans without warrants or other judicial-branch oversight. Now, the first couple items (from 1972-74) do reference warrantless surveillance. They don't mention who authorized it. That would have been Nixon.
There's are reasons that we have FISA and other laws which regulate surveillance. Chief among them are that President Nixon proved that the executive branch is highly capable of using the intelligence services for unconstitutional purposes. There are parts of those laws which I disagree with. But they are meant to prevent the kinds of executive branch abuse seen in the Nixon admininstration and again today.
Why the Bush administration is in a mess here (Score:5, Informative)
The Bush administration is in a mess here. Their real problem is that if they'd asked the FISA court for the authority to do what they're doing, they'd have been turned down. If they'd asked Congress for it, some tough questions would have been asked by members of Congress in a position to demand answers. Remember, the conservative right, "Bush's Base", isn't comfortable with wiretapping. Bush can go to Congress for more wiretapping authority, but right now, he probably wouldn't get it. Hence the desperate legal moves.
And they are desperate. Notice what happened here. The Administration tried to use a secrecy order to prevent this issue from going to trial. That's because they can't win on the merits. But since the Administration had already admitted enough in public to establish that such wiretapping was going on, that didn't prevent the court from addressing the issue.
At the appeals level, the facts of the case aren't reviewed, just the law. Because, as the district judge pointed out, it is not controverted that such wiretapping occured, that's not a issue. So the secrecy issue isn't really an issue on appeal. This leaves the Administration with only its weak arguments.
Incidentally, this is a criminal statute. See 50 USC 1811. If you work for NSA, or a telephone company and are involved in illegal wiretapping, you could go to jail for five years. That could happen years in the future, under a future administration.
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
BZZT. Not only have the courts refuted you on that, but Bush himself has accepted that you're wrong.
"Bush has not broken any laws in the eaves-dropping the NSA has done. We are at war and we are eavesdropping on enemy communications. And make sure you get that phrasing correct. There have not been any wiretaps, only Eaves droppings. Its a huge difference that the Antique media conveniently misses."
Bush has violated 2 constitutional rights here.
a) The right of freedom of association.
b) No search & seizure without a warrant. One person on all of those "international calls" was an American whose call was searched and seized without a warrant. Make no mistake. The US Constitution says nothing involving an American can be searched and seized without a warrant.
But most importantly:
c) The NSA was also monitoring all Americans' calls - every citizen in America was being wiretapped, all without probable cause, all without a warrant. Flat out, the US Constitution completely and expressly forbids this, and there is no room for an alternative interpretation of the Constitution on this issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of that in any way is relevant to justifying the NSA monitoring all American citizens' phone calls. There was no probable caus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody,including this judge, said the government isnt allowed to spy. They/we are saying, that the government isnt allowed to spy without a warrant presented to and approved by a FISA court.
You bushbots can keep presenting straw man arguments and attempts at obsfucating the issues, but it boils down to this....
we are a nation of laws. That includes the President and those th