backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 62 comment(s) - last by danrien.. on Jun 10 at 2:39 AM


Be careful what you say; the government might be on the other line! Federal Reports have provided domestic wiretapping immunity laws judicial approval, clearing the way for the government to tap its citizen's phones without warning or fear of prosecution.  (Source: Sandy Wise)
Dismissal was supported jointly by Obama, Bush administrations

In another move showcasing the surprising similarities between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, the government has secured dismissal of lawsuits against AT&T and others for participation in domestic spying programs.  The move was supported by both administrations, and is a loss for those who would like to expose the program.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ruled that a law passed by Congress in July was proper in its provisions of retroactive immunity for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and other telecommunication firms which helped the U.S. government spy on its citizens.  Both the Bush and Obama administration said the telecoms were protected under "state secret privileges".  However, until the new law, Judge Walker refused to dismiss the case which has been ongoing since 2006.

Judge Walker found the law to be constitutional and threw out the case filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based free-speech advocacy group that sued on behalf of customers.  He stated, "[The new law left] no room for doubt that these cases were the intended target of the new immunity provisions.  It creates a retroactive immunity for past, completed acts committed by private parties acting in concert with governmental entities that allegedly violated constitutional rights."

Tracy Schmaler, an Obama administration Justice Department spokeswoman cheered the ruling, stating, "The court correctly held that Congress did not exceed its constitutional authority under the separation of powers doctrine or improperly usurp the authority of courts when it passed this provision."

AT&T also praised the ruling, with spokesman Walt Sharp, stating, "We are gratified by the court’s decision and we look forward to continuing our focus on serving our customers’ needs."

Cindy Cohn, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, though, is disturbed by the ruling and plans to appeal.  She states, "Our argument here is that by giving the attorney general free reign to decide whether our cases go to court, Congress has punted the hard questions to the executive branch.  All of us have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of indiscriminate searches and Congress can’t take away that right."

Over 30 lawsuits have been filed in association with the government's domestic spying programs.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By Randomblame on 6/4/2009 6:50:18 PM , Rating: 4
The only "change" we're getting is more spending, new socialist programs, and a major loss of faith in the stock market, and value of the dollar. We are losing rights faster than ever. I don't blame Obama I blame the ignorance of the people who voted him into office. Next time use your heads people. Vote for the man or woman, black or white, who will actually take care of our country. Someone with experience and a record that shows he has done a good job in the past. Don't just vote for the black guy, don't just vote for the woman, make sure you vote for the best PERSON for the job.

I swear to God if this keeps up I'm out of here




RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By OrSin on 6/4/2009 7:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah because black guys and women get voted in all the time, even the one with C averages. Obama was better then what ever the "R" tossed in the ring. They know they had no chance after bush crapped up the country and didn't care who ran against Obama. And Obaman has to deal with all the crap W left behind. The Stock market did great under W, TARP was not a social program and the value of the dollar really took off under bush too. You are completely laughable.

You really blame our current state on Obama?


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By bodar on 6/4/2009 11:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
I get pretty annoyed at the fact that Obama kept talking about change and transparency, and all we get is more BS and rampant spending. Didn't we vote for Obama to avoid "4 more more years of the same"?


By StevoLincolnite on 6/5/2009 1:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
Here because of our governments large amount of spending we avoided a recession. (But who is to say we are just pro-longing the inevitable?).

We did have a surplus of 22 Billion now it seems we are in debt almost 100 billion. :(

On the bright-side the money wasn't used to bail out companies, it was spent on the people, and infrastructure, like the National Broadband Network, Railway upgrades, Desalination plants for areas that desperately need it, Schools and Hospitals, so in the end it created more jobs and helped the people out.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By PlasmaBomb on 6/5/2009 4:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
You never had a surplus under Bush.


By StevoLincolnite on 6/5/2009 6:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Did you even read my post? I never even stated I lived in America, and I also stated that our government never bailed out any company's.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By aegisofrime on 6/5/2009 7:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
I might be wrong, but you never stated you were Australian either. If you hadn't mentioned the National Broadband Network, nobody would know where you are from.


By StevoLincolnite on 6/5/2009 8:28:47 AM , Rating: 1
I shouldn't have to, I do live in Australia, but people shouldn't automatically jump the gun and thinks everyone lives in America.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By acase on 6/5/2009 9:36:54 AM , Rating: 5
It's an American tech website and an article strictly about America, and you made your comment in a thread ALL ABOUT AMERICA...yah you should probably mention it.


By StevoLincolnite on 6/6/2009 12:41:51 AM , Rating: 1
It's the internet, it's not limited to a single country, there are no border controls.


By AEvangel on 6/9/2009 12:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Neither is it limited to people making posts that make no sense.

Next time mention what your referring to as you post made no sense to me at least till it was made clear that you were commenting about Australia's economy, which only happened a couple post later.

Also we American's don't all think we own the internet or everything is all about us, so get off your high horse there.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2009 6:34:57 AM , Rating: 1
I blame Congress and Obama. They could have passed tax cuts. They could have not bailed out automakers. They could not threaten private industry with every breath they take. They could not try to destroy our health care system on the promise of making it "free".

And yes the stock market did do great under Bush until the end. Gee funny how that was after the Democrats took control of Congress. And how many of the things that lead to all this the Democrats had a large amount of influence over and were responsible for.

I won't excuse Bush for passing TARP 1. But that doesn't excuse all this spending Obama is doing either.


By HinderedHindsight on 6/5/2009 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes the stock market did do great under Bush until the end. Gee funny how that was after the Democrats took control of Congress.


The democrats were barely in office for a year before the recession began. The downturn began not because of 1 year of democrats in control of congress, but more likely happened with 7+ years of Republican congress and executive office. That amount of time and control greatly outweighs and outstrips anything the Democrats could do in control of Congress in just a year.

By the way, isn't another Republican argument against government is that it is slow, and that's why we don't want it managing the economy? It seems that a year is rather quick to undo 7 years of hard work that republicans put into the economy, spending money on wars, allowing business to behave however it wants, and generally getting itself into trouble.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By Ammohunt on 6/5/2009 1:58:44 PM , Rating: 1
The Bush administration brought the country back after the dot com bust and the 9/11 downturn...


By therealnickdanger on 6/5/2009 2:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
That was my understanding as well. The largest (and likely sole) reason for our current market problems are due to liberal stonewalling about the home lending market. Bush and his allies TRIED to stop the self-destructive lending, but the libs controlled Congress, making our current financial state inevitable.

The cost of war overseas are a drop in the bucket compared all the other waste.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By homebredcorgi on 6/5/2009 3:02:52 PM , Rating: 3
That is a really tainted view on things. If by "brought back" you mean lowered lending rates for so long it started a housing bubble fueled by debt and then stood by and did nothing once it was obviously unsustainable, yeah they brought it back. We are paying the price for it being brought back right now. In reality, this is more Greenspan's doing as I doubt any actual politicians really understand enough about economics to know what was going on (but since you so freely gave them credit, oh well).

The fact is that this really isn't a partisan issue. Everyone in Congress has plenty of blame in this mess, among many other groups (banks, real estate, insurance companies, ratings agencies, the general public etc). Probably the worst act of deregulation (among many bad ideas) was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which Repealed much of the Glass-Steagall Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Ac...
Note the voting spread and sponsors of the bill. Yes, Clinton signed it - read the first sentence of this paragraph again.

Much of this deregulation was brought up by the financial industry themselves (the ties to Goldman Sachs in the treasury are pretty disgusting) and it took decades to get where we are today (Reaganomics anyone?). It can't be pinned on any one President or any one party. If you think this is all because of some Democratic agenda to get poor people in houses, wait another year or two when all of the Alt-A and prime loans begin defaulting. Who am I kidding, I'm sure there will be some alternate reality that twists it into a partisan problem again.

As an aside, don't you get tired of fighting the same damn arguments from the 1960's? Doesn't "us vs. them" and "with us or against us" seem to have run its course by now? I don't see how this polarization is doing us any good and I sincerely doubt everyone in this country is so extreme left or right in their views.


By WW102 on 6/7/2009 1:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Take a look at this link. I talks about Clinton starting "asking" Freddie & Fannie to lower lending requirements.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-...


By Elementalism on 6/8/2009 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
Our economy goes in cycles. It happened because it was time. It was made worse by the housing bubble. Anybody who believes the president or party has any real control over our economy are clueless. If they had control we would never see a bad economic cycle. And all the money we spent in Feb would have stopped the nearly 2 million jobs we lost since then.


By jackedupandgoodtogo on 6/5/2009 4:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes the stock market did do great under Bush until the end. Gee funny how that was after the Democrats took control of Congress.


The stock market is a shame and a farce. Any administration's abilities to lead America is not tied to how the stock market does. I blame Wall Street and the elitists of the world for all our troubles. The goofballs in government are merely their puppets placed before the American Sheeple to vote in (pick poison A or poison B).

Wall Street and the Federal Reserve private bank of Wall Street enforce inflationary policies through government legislation, which will simply drive the world into catastrophe through usury lending. If you don't know how credit works, learn about it. You'll realize we're in deep doo-doo due to the ponzi scheme that it is. For a hint, credit is created out of thin air (ie. money is "made"), but only the amount lent. The interest due is not magically created and added into the base money supply, and therefore must come from existing money supply. In case you don't know what that means, it means we owe more money than actually exists in the world! Over the centuries, this practice has allowed trillions owed with only billions of real money! Add to this derivatives, which is a leverage of debt, and you now have quadrillions owed, with only billions of real dollars. How does that ever get resolved without creating hyper inflation through printing of more real money?


By AEvangel on 6/9/2009 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's refreshing to see at least someone out there is smart enough to realize that the US Government is just a tool of the Banking conglomerates and the Super Rich.

Since the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank the US Government has been reduce to a circus side show to give the majority of the public someone to blame and a false sense of control.

The Republican and Democrats are just there to keep the masses separated and fighting amongst ourselves with hot topic issues like Abortion, and Gay Marriage. Issues that barely affect 5% of the total population of the country, but yet dominate 50% of the debates.

The real control is done by those with real money. No this isn't the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist just common sense. All you have to do is follow the money. People with Money and Power always want more or more ways to secure what they have. That is all it is simple greed.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By Beno on 6/4/2009 10:27:08 PM , Rating: 3
you think obama is the one making policy?
hes just the guy on the headline.


By FITCamaro on 6/5/2009 6:35:42 AM , Rating: 4
He sure doesn't mind taking the credit for it all on the news...


By thekdub on 6/4/2009 11:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for lumping everyone into your accusation, whether they voted for the man or not. Your username, surely nothing more than a coincidence?


By chaos386 on 6/5/2009 4:39:47 AM , Rating: 4
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


By Typesno on 6/5/2009 7:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
bye


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By PhoenixKnight on 6/5/2009 9:36:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Vote for the man or woman, black or white, who will actually take care of our country.


I don't think such a person has ever been one of the choices for any election.


RE: I'm glad you guys all voted for "change"
By NaughtyGeek on 6/5/2009 11:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
You've never heard of Ron Paul have you?


By Ammohunt on 6/5/2009 1:59:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ron Paul is a reptilian alien.


By Jimbo1234 on 6/5/2009 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
See ya.


Wrong target?
By dragonbif on 6/4/2009 4:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds to me like they are going after the wrong people. If the phone com are doing it because big gov told them to then why go after the phone guys? I will always say that a warrant is needed to do a phone tap and if that is being bypassed then it is the government at fault.




RE: Wrong target?
By vapore0n on 6/4/2009 4:59:01 PM , Rating: 5
another reason why the Patriot Act was enacted. Give the government the power to do so with out any liability.


RE: Wrong target?
By Snake357 on 6/4/2009 5:01:29 PM , Rating: 5
Except there was one phone company that did not comply with the requests. Qwest had the stones to say no because it was illegal. I never liked Qwest when I was a customer, but I admire them for taking a stand when everyone else rolled over.


RE: Wrong target?
By TSS on 6/4/2009 8:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
that would be my initial response too yes, and probably the same as alot of people. however if you think a little harder, these company's still (mainly) consist of US citizens. and it's still the duty of US citizens to protect eachother from the government. why do you think you have a constitutional right to bear arms?

the true proper action for these company's would have been opposing the requests, and if it was signed into law, fight the law in the courts. and then hope the courts remain (slightly) impartial.

if one assumes that with the illigal wiretaps the american government betrayed it's people, these company's would be deemed "collaberators" and not "victems". while this law just states they where victems and thus, not to blame.

just because the government says yes doesn't mean you have to comply. there's always a choice.


RE: Wrong target?
By danrien on 6/10/2009 2:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
That was the original intent when this started. However, when organizations such as the EFF sued the government, the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence. The EFF then tried to subpoena and then sue the phone companies to get the evidence, and the result is what we now see.


.
By sprockkets on 6/4/2009 5:28:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
AT&T also praised the ruling, with spokesman Walt Sharp, stating, "We are gratified by the court’s decision and we look forward to continuing our focus on serving our customers’ needs."


FUCK YOU




RE: .
By DASQ on 6/4/2009 5:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: .
By robertisaar on 6/4/2009 5:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
VERY well said.

"continuing our focus on serving our customers’ needs"

so as long as the government is protecting their ass, they'll do whatever the fuck they want, government-ordered or not.


RE: .
By jadeskye on 6/4/2009 11:48:18 PM , Rating: 1
fuck a 6, give this man a 10.


RE: .
By mikeyD95125 on 6/5/2009 2:09:54 AM , Rating: 1
AT@T Customer Needs:

Good coverage
Responsive customer service
Easily tapped phone connections?

Normally I just regard PR statements as generic and lame but but this is just infuriating. I have to wonder what asshole cooked this one up.


I don't see why
By amanojaku on 6/4/2009 4:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
The telcos and ISPs should be sued if spying is "requested" by the government. Sue the Feds!




RE: I don't see why
By MozeeToby on 6/4/2009 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
The laws explicitly state that a company following government orders in good faith isn't liable for invasions of privacy. However, if the companies knew that what they were doing was illegal/unconstitutional then that isn't in good faith anymore.

That's what needs to be decided in the court of law, otherwise the government could order any company to do anything and the company could just claim they were following orders. To take it to the extreme, would you say the same thing if the government ordered a military contractor to kill innocent civilians? Obviously not.


RE: I don't see why
By mindless1 on 6/4/2009 6:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but it is pointless, even if the government didn't institute new laws to cover their arses by extension of protecting those who were complacent, a later court ruling could be overturned, people could be pardoned, and other avenues of escape from justice.

The government is not about to allow anyone acting upon their direction to suffer penalty later, and that is a fair position since government includes the justice system. What is unfair is the granting of such eavesdropping powers in the first place.


RE: I don't see why
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2009 11:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government is not about to allow anyone acting upon their direction to suffer penalty later


This is also why the government helped out Chrysler and GM. With 3 billion in ethanol subsidies a year and easy credit post 9/11, both GM and Chrysler were following Uncle Sam's direction at the time.


Not at all misleading
By fishbits on 6/4/2009 5:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
"Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, former President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to intercept phone calls to the U.S. from suspected terrorists overseas."

Overseas? Hmm, overseas. And suspected terrorists, whom the public massively wants monitored. Ah, I know! We'll say that it's "domestic spying." Just give the impression that W is randomly listening in on citizen's stateside-to-stateside calls. Now THAT sounds evil! Should be perfectly suitable for villifying the government while we still insist they keep us safe from attack.

Except now there's a "D" instead of an "R" supporting the exact same policy. Which makes it OK because, well, it's a "D" instead of an "R." Sounds like running a country ends up being harder than chanting "hope change future." Who could have forseen the government protecting its ability to listen to communications from terror suspects originating overseas?




RE: Not at all misleading
By sdoorex on 6/4/2009 5:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Overseas? Hmm, overseas. And suspected terrorists, whom the public massively wants monitored. Ah, I know! We'll say that it's "domestic spying." Just give the impression that W is randomly listening in on citizen's stateside-to-stateside calls. Now THAT sounds evil! Should be perfectly suitable for villifying the government while we still insist they keep us safe from attack.

Except now there's a "D" instead of an "R" supporting the exact same policy. Which makes it OK because, well, it's a "D" instead of an "R." Sounds like running a country ends up being harder than chanting "hope change future."


I don't care what side of the two parties are doing it, either way it is illegal to wiretap and listen in on any conversation, even of "suspected terrorist" which can be anyone per the Patriot Act, without a warrant according to the 4th amendment. The two parties serve their own self interest, when why they are sticking up for the illegal activities.


RE: Not at all misleading
By jhb116 on 6/5/2009 11:22:18 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I agree with this policy - but I wonder how many of the people that are "violently" (in a blog sense) opposed to this policy talk on the cell phone at 120 db? Especially on airplanes (on the ground), buses, resteraunts and other public locations.


uh huh..
By DASQ on 6/4/2009 4:42:09 PM , Rating: 5
Never fear citizens, the needs of the many bow before the needs of the Administration.

Hail Caesar.




Encryption....
By createcoms on 6/5/2009 2:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is another good time to remind people to use encryption for anything they don't want hanging on the clothesline in full view of the neighbours... I *force* SSL connections for all my P2P/newsgroup indexing and downloading - plus any other "activities" of the miscellaneous nature and if I'm feeling especially paranoid I dig a multi-proxy SSL tunnel to my site of choice...... Sure they can take privacy in law, but in practice those who seek privacy CAN have it albeit with some effort.




RE: Encryption....
By acase on 6/5/2009 7:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
sounds like a lot of work just for a little pr0n


God Damn Piece of Paper
By NaughtyGeek on 6/5/2009 11:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,'

But who the hell cares about The Constitution, it's just a God Damned piece of paper. Congress had no authority to grant retroactive immunity and neither does this judge. The law as written at the time is what needed to be tried in a court of law and I would expect this to be appealed on those grounds.




RE: God Damn Piece of Paper
By homebredcorgi on 6/5/2009 3:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Nice to see someone actually talking about the article. How come nobody ever mentions Qwest? They actually refused when the government asked them to do this.

The circular logic here was always nuts. They didn't do anything wrong because the government asked them to do it, but they need retro-active immunity because the government asked them to do it so they might have done something wrong.

The sad fact is that there always was a LEGAL route to this problem. If you were so sure you had a guy that needed a wire tap immediately and you had no time to get a warrant, you could do it and then go to a secret court after the fact and get the warrant. But that wasn't good enough for the last administration, so they just decided to forgo the whole court thing and siphon off half the internet for whatever the hell they felt like. Even if it was in the name of protecting our country, it isn't legal. I am continually amazed at the rights we are willing to give up all in the name of feeling a bit safer.


By postalbob on 6/5/2009 7:41:24 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I'm sorry to go against the "I'm being wronged by the government!!" mentality here but:

Invasion of privacy in itself just for the sake of being against the constitution does not make it wrong.

The consitution was made adaptable because the constitution is moldable per common sense of what should be considered right and wrong which evolves. The oringinal laws we had at the time none of you want back. Look up some of the laws in the past. Seriously, they were horrible. Stop with the whining on "that's against the constitution!"

Now to my main point: Where are the damages of wiretapping if the use of that wiretapping itself is limited to only terrorist actions? In the real world who in the world would be persecuted that was not a terrorist due to a poor definition? Punishments are processed by real human beings, not strictly to code. Real humans would be able to figure out who was and was not a terrorist. Invasion of privacy is not invasion of privacy without damages. Where are the damages of the goverment listening in to you and your wife bicker? (I'm not talking definition I'm talking about what I perceive to be the true concept) When the benefits out weigh the costs then it is a good act. The patriot act was and is a good act.

The cost: A bunch of whiners say they are damaged with not one incident to prove it. Not even ONE incident to prove a loop hole from the definition of the word "terrorism" persecuting an innocent person or causing "real" damages but they claim what "could" happen.

The benefit: We might stop a few terrorist attacks.

It amazes me how these same type of people are the cheating boyfriends or girlfriends who get pissed off that their boyfriends or girlfriends were even remotely suspicious of them cheating.




By 91TTZ on 6/8/2009 11:21:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now to my main point: Where are the damages of wiretapping if the use of that wiretapping itself is limited to only terrorist actions? In the real world who in the world would be persecuted that was not a terrorist due to a poor definition? Punishments are processed by real human beings, not strictly to code. Real humans would be able to figure out who was and was not a terrorist.


The problem is that with the laws we currently have, there is no chance for anyone to double check the government's work. That information won't be released and the checks and balances have been removed.

For instance, if the government kicks down your door because they received an anonymous tip that you're engaging in terrorist activities, their source is confidential and you have no legal recourse.

How can you be sure that there was really any "anonymous tip" in the first place? How do you know that they didn't just fabricate that excuse because it's unchallengeable? These are the scary implications of these laws.

quote:
It amazes me how these same type of people are the cheating boyfriends or girlfriends who get pissed off that their boyfriends or girlfriends were even remotely suspicious of them cheating.


It sounds like you're using the flawed "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument.


Not suprising...
By IcePickFreak on 6/4/2009 5:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think the telco's were basically stuck in the middle on this one. In the end it comes down to the government ruled in favor of... the government.

When are they going to start issuing civilian uniforms?




next time?
By doc2or on 6/4/2009 5:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
So what is to stop the telco's from future wiretapping without a warrant? Appears to be nothing.
Yes AT&T, you can now go back to f*cking your customers "legally" till the government needs you again.




This sucks
By HostileEffect on 6/4/2009 6:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, one more reason to be hesitant to exercise ones right to free speech.




T-mobile?
By dr4gon on 6/4/2009 6:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Watch out T-Mobile!




Surprising? I think not.
By soloman02 on 6/4/2009 7:24:48 PM , Rating: 1
"In another move showcasing the surprising similarities between the Bush administration and the Obama administration"

How is that surprising? If you actually believed all the "hope and change" mumbo jumbo, your an idiot.

Let me sum up for y'all:
Same shit, different administration.




RE: Surprising? I think not.
By ImJustSaying on 6/4/2009 11:17:13 PM , Rating: 1
Word.

Except we don't have to worry quite so much about the fucking self-righteous religiosity and 'good vs evil' rhetoric that permeated the last administration.

But yes, not surprising that this administration is keeping and will most likely seek to expand the powers that have been grandfathered to it.



By chick0n on 6/5/2009 12:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
Then all people will start attacking the Chinese Government saying that they spying users, government covering stuff, invading privacy, no freedom, blah blah blah.




Senseless postinngs
By cnar77 on 6/5/2009 11:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
There is a fine line between security and law. Ethics however is subjective being that it is not universal and is based on cultural and societal norms.

The laws of the land permitted telcos to carry out these acts under the previous administration in order to secure and assure Americans. There is no argument that rights were violated. However one must note that in times of war many rights are expunged from society.

America has been lucky in this regard as many freedoms remained. However instead of going after the leaders that allowed these rights to be relegated to the sewers we're going after the companies that in order to operate must comply with the laws of the land. Laws put in place by democratically elected officials. These were representatives of the people.

We have rightly criticised Cisco and Google for complying with the Chinese Government demands but during that issue and important point was made. A company operating within a country agrees to operate within the laws of that country. So whether you believe the laws are wrong is irrelevant and if you refuse to follow them then you cannot operate. It is that simple. If AT&T etc or Cisco etc had any issues with the laws they were forced to comply with then senior members of staff should have made that clear and resigned (unfortunately that's their livelihood they'll be giving up). Not that this would have prevented the wiretapping.
We’ve seen lawsuits against IBM in 2001 regarding the supply of punch card machines to the Nazis during the 1930s and 40s. Popular opinion is that they should not have provided anything to the Nazis. But what happens if in 10 years the powers of the US end up in China and Intel, Microsoft, Verisign and many others are sued on behalf of the Chinese people? It was a Nazis that said if they had one the war it would have been the Americans and British on trial. So why I do not deny that someone has to be held accountable we need to stop shooting the messenger and put the responsibility where it belongs.

Obama said something that is very true. He said the buck stops with him. Even though he can't control everything full responsibility is with him. The same is true for Bush. At least Cheney has the courage to come out and support his actions for better or worse. The person to be sued over the telcoms wiretapping should be the government. They should be made to pay with their seats and their pensions. Holding an organization responsible for following the rule of law is simply foolish to anyone who has the sense to understand what a bad precedent this could have been. We only need to look at the companies that worked for the Nazis. 50 years later we repeat the same process going after the companies that cooperated with the Bush-Cheney agenda.




Eh?
By postalbob on 6/9/2009 6:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
"The problem is that with the laws we currently have, there is no chance for anyone to double check the government's work. That information won't be released and the checks and balances have been removed." "For instance, if the government kicks down your door because they received an anonymous tip that you're engaging in terrorist activities, their source is confidential and you have no legal recourse."

This does not disprove my point. Who starts the whole process to begin with? A human being. Is a member of the government not a human being? Are you that paranoid of humanity and our government? If you are you'd recognize there is no such thing is a government check which would not be government controlled so whether or not there are checks are irrelavent. The person who made the order to get the guys to knock down the door would know if the accused were a potential terrorist or not and would be a human being and is selected. There would almost never be a situation where a door would be kicked down if the person was not a terrorist. You and I both know the difference between someone saying "God I hate Obama I want to blow the @#%@er up" in a rant and "Ok, let's meet at 5:30 under the bridge and start plan alpha omega one". It's common sense.

"How can you be sure that there was really any "anonymous tip" in the first place? How do you know that they didn't just fabricate that excuse because it's unchallengeable? These are the scary implications of these laws."

This is a bad argument. So what this comes down to is we can monitor the government and it's ok because the good effects outweigh the bad (and it would be monitored by more government, so it's technically impossible), but let's not let the government monitor the potential terrorists because that's just wrong and we can't trust the government to protect our lives (which there is no way we can do independantly) because in some random loop the government can't be monitored well enough and should be but can't be? The goverment handles our protection, our military, etc and they should. If you'd prefer to handle it or have a better way be my guest and offer the solution, but I don't think you'd be able to handle a WWII situation, or terrorist monitoring from your car. It's been proven that keeping the information on those things private is the only way we stop terrorist actions. If enemy nations know what we know, they know how to get through. America is not a country where people get snatched by the secret police, there's no benefit to power. You still don't have an example, only should have could have would have happened. You need to weigh all sides of the equation, and with all sides weighed, our government handling potential terrorist acts is the best way of doing it and is the only way. If you could offer a more effective solution I would be all ears. Complaining about what is wrong without a better solution is just unprofessional.

"It sounds like you're using the flawed "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument."

Flawed? Actually that was not quite my point, but even such the statement you provided would not be a flawed concept. The main point was actually that it does not make you a damaged party because someone simply had the nerve and gaul to distrust you enough to look into what you did or did not do. If so I could say you're just as bad for being paranoid about the government... and say you have some nerve. But that's just silly isn't it?




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki