Immunity for Telecoms that Invade YOUR Privacy? (repost due to technical difficulties (gather glitch))

So it's a good thing telecoms get immunity, my db1er friend? Oh, it's just me you are against? I forgot, lol.

I know it's not time for me to comment to you again yet, but I really needed to make you and everyone else aware of this. (I didn't rate your article, by the way. I almost never rate articles.)

I just wanted to mention that I had a telephone conversation with my friend just the other day and we were talking about a recipe for pretzels. As soon as I mentioned the word, "pretzel" there was a clicking noise in my phone. I think it is some kind of subversive code word. All of a sudden the lights went out in my house and I had to reset the breakers. My friend experienced the same thing. Yesterday there was a package that arrived and I opened it very carefully and inside was, yes, a pretzel. I know I'm being watched and I'm so scared!

Thanks Sue, I needed a laugh this morning, too, but let's not pretend there was no crime against the constitution, and as a result, the American public, that needs to be brought out here in order to stop it from happening again. I take the constitution, and especially the bill of rights seriously. Thanks for commenting though, I enjoyed that.

Thank you for this, Ron.

Well I understand that they're fingering anyone with whom I communicate too.

Call your Senator, that's all the thanks I want, Angela. Thanks though.

OK,
I will shun you immediately then, lol.

Too late.

It's more likely, that any fingering being done at the moment is on anyone that associates or agrees with me. I'm sure there is a suite at one of the haliburton hiltons being built in the deserts with my name on it already, Sue. Send care packages, please.

The only problem with your premise, Ron, is that the information the telcoms provided the government wasn't the content of the calls in question, only numbers; specifically which number called or were called, by other numbers known to be suspect.

If a pattern is detected, then a warrant is sought so that content can be obtained to listen to content. No one's privacy is being violated by simply looking at what numbers are calling or being called by their phone number. The telcoms should be given immunity from providing this information to the NSA. They did so in good faith.

Frankly,
You, know nothing about the program, and your comment is BS. Of course, no one knows anything much about the program, which is why I know your comment is your conjecture, and not fact. That is why this needs to be defeated. If the Telecoms did nothing wrong, David, they would not be pouring cash all over this bill, obviously.

You, know nothing about the program, and your comment is BS.

THe program has been outlined to four Congressional committees... in OPEN hearings, Ron. No, no one other than those who are involved with the conduct of the program, and the members of the relevent Congressional committees know the details. However, that means you have no idea about what you're alledging, either. Which means you're allegations are even MORE BS than what you slaim not comments to be.

At least my comments are based on sworn testimony. Your's is based one Lifetwing-lunatic paranoia. The problem is, if I'm wrong in relying on that sworn testimony, it can be fixed. If you're wrong, people ... many people, can die. I'd prefer we error on the side of life, Ron.

No, you are commenting on todays NSA programs. This is not about those programs, this is about the unlawful version that brought the DOJ to revolt and make the president adjust his spying TO the programs you are commenting on. You have absolutely no knowledge of the former secret programs, as no one else does, or will, if this amendment is passed, which is what all you thirty precenters want, no exposure of the truth.

...this is about the unlawful version that brought the DOJ to revolt and make the president adjust his spying TO the programs you are commenting on.

Again, you're talking out your ass, Ron. You don't know know what changes, if any, have been made to the programs.

In any event, it makes no sense to retroactively punish the telcoms for acting in good faith by cooperating with the government.

It makes all the sense in the world to prosecute those that violate our most basic constitutional rights, and I know there was illegality, considering Bush's own appointed attorney General (Ashcroft) and his own appointed assistant attorney generals revolted over it's content. I think that is a very good indication that it should be exposed, and the fact you don't, just shows how totally afraid of truth your side has become. The telecoms, with the exception of the one man they have railroaded into an insider trading charge, were happy to violate our rights at the behest of lucrative contracts to do so. Finding out what it was they did, is imperative to the protection of our constitutional rights, and if they did what we fear, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, just as Bush and his minions should. Holding lawbreakers above prosecution is your territory, not mine.

Lets be honest here Ron, the telecom companies were doing what the federal government said they had a right to do. They had legal opinions and the patriot act and post 9/11 hysteria. They should be given immunity because they followed what at that time was the law of the land. It is like during a special event when a police officer waves you through a red light. Should you have to pay a fine if the cop was later found to violate procedure.

Oh, great... It would have to be San Francisco...

Let's be honest Publius, and take a look at the other article I have up on this, and the path they are supposed to take to conform with this type of request from our government, that they obviously didn't because of the dollar signs in their little eyes. One man didn't fall for their spiel, and he has been railroaded into a insider trading, trumped up punishment charge. With Bush at the helm, our government has been our worst enemy in protecting constitutional rights, get real. You would give anything Bush has done a green light, and wave us all through, even if there was a cliff on the other side of the intersection, admit it. You and yours betray these United States, not help it. You advocate fascism, and totalitarian rule through the unitary executive model.

Sorry Jean, facts is facts.

I actuall said nothing about Bush Ron, here you go again with your same lines. The fact is that until ruled unconsitutional the phone companies were told they had to do something and they did it.

Publicless,
My other article has a letter from Russ Feingold that details the law that tells Telecoms what they are to do in this situation. We are a nation of laws, no matter how you and your hero wish it wasn't. There is an established procedure, and an established law that covers this. I don't care if you said a word about Bush, this is ALL about Bush Administration shenanigans, again. If the Telecoms did not follow that law, they should be prosecuted. The law stands to protect us from just this kind of situation.

There you go again Ron, bush is not my hero. The fact is that after 9/11 there was a push for more security and some gave into the demands of the feds. Not that it was right but even the patriot act passed because of the national coming together.

Fact Check Ron, there is not an established procedure what you linked to was an editorial that Russ Feigold that said no one should trust what THIS administration says so the companies should not have trusted the legal threats. That is like if you get pulled over for breaking a traffic law that you do not think is a law you dont argue at that time but you go to court. The people who had a problem sued and got the law overturned by a court. They should not recieve compensation from phone companies who were doing what the government told them they were legally supposed to.

But of course you want them to be sued because all companies are evil and people deserve their free lunches, so who cares about what they were told they legally had to do or be shut down by the feds.

It laid out the laws that govern this type of request, and as for your putting it as "giving in to the push of the feds" it is simply a violation of the law. (One CEO told them so. He's now in the fight of his life for trumped up charges.) It's a violation of the bill of rights, and punishable by law. It's really quite cut and dried, there's nothing in the law that says, "Well, if you feel like you should" It says you CAN'T, period. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Especially a bill of rights violating crime. They don't get any more basic than that. I want them to be sued because they have done what they should be sued for, blatantly sacrificing our constitutional rights, in pursuit of lucrative government contracts, and it's as simple as that. You may not take constitutional freedoms seriously, but any true patriot does.

This is the lletter in question.

Re "Uncle Sam on the Line" (Op-Ed, Nov. 5): Former Attorney General John Ashcroft leaves out a crucial point when he argues that telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program should be shielded from lawsuits.

Telecom companies that cooperate with a government wiretap request are already immune from lawsuits, as long as they get a court order or a certification from the attorney general that the wiretap follows all applicable statutes.

This immunity provision in current law protects companies that respond to legitimate government requests for assistance. It also protects innocent Americans who expect that their communications will remain private unless the government and the companies are acting lawfully.

If companies that allegedly cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping program didn't follow the law during the five years that the program was in existence, they should be held accountable. And courts should be allowed to rule on the legality of this program.

If we want companies and the government to follow the law in the future, retroactive immunity sets a terrible precedent.

Russ Feingold
U.S. Senator from Wisconsin
Washington, Nov. 6, 2007

It would appear to me to speak of present law, covering this situation. All they needed to do was get a certification from the attorney general that the wiretap follows all applicable statutes, and they were covered, but they did not, apparently, or they wouldn't be pouring money into Washington to secure this legislation to give them immunity. Now why would that be, Publicless? Why wouldn't they get that certification, and cover their own butts? I can tell you, it's obvious.

Becasuse the regulator told them to coperate. What you forget is that the big government that your friends like so much make it hard to operate without the approval of government. If there was less regulation and more free market we would not have these problems

MDP - Actually Quest refused to cooperate and the government just went away. Why is that do you suppose. Well I can tell you because what the government wanted. Actually what the Cheney/Bush administration wanted was illegal. EOS.

Thanks Kevin, maybe he'll believe it from somebody else. I've probably insulted him too much for his blind allegiance, for him to ever listen to me

I dont disagree the administration crossed the line, but the point that individuals are going after settlements from the companies is just lawsuit happy america. Good for Quest, but I have seen what the Federal Government can do if you do not cooperate and that had reasons to be worried.

Its not just limited to Bush though everytime there is a national tradgedy we tend to overreact. Lincoln did during the Civil War, FDR did during WWII, and Bush did in the aftermath of terrorism in the us and during the War on Terror.

Publicless, lawsuit happy? These companies knew what they were doing was illegal, and they wiretapped them anyway, how you see these people as lawsuit happy, I do not know. Part of the legal suit system is for exactly this purpose, to hurt companies that perform unethical deeds where it impresses them most, and deters them most, in the bottom line. Indeed many corporations have proven very hard headed, that nothing else can motivate a change of behavior. Any CEO that authorized these wiretaps should be criminally charged, as well. As for over reacting, I find it a little more believable, that not only was 911 just a convenient excuse for invading Iraq, this too was something they wanted to do anyway. It's straight out of Cheney's past, as an ex Nixon staffer.This is why I want to see these suits go through, as we might get a glimpse of what they were really trying to accomplish with them, and I'd bet a dime to a donut, considering everything else they were doing was aimed at Republican dominance (the new hundred year reich), we will find out he wiretapped political opponents. I can see hardly any other real use, and nothing else would have raised the ire of his own Justice Department to the point of mutiny.