Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama, not McCain or Clinton, votes for electronic privacy
news.com — A U.S. Senate vote that took place two hours ago reveals how much three of our leading presidential candidates are committed to electronic privacy and the rule of law. Barack Obama passes the test. John McCain failed. Hillary Clinton gets an incomplete.
bluno- 250 diggs
- digg it
- quam, on 02/13/2008, -1/+17Roll call of the votes (from Declan): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Joining Barack:
Akaka (D-HI), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT), Wyden (D-OR)- Bartboy919, on 02/13/2008, -0/+9I like how not a single republican voted nay on this piece of ***** legislation. Some may say that both parties are *****, but i can obviously tell which one is the least ***** up.
- swrostmore, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5"bipartisan" = all Republicans and just enough Dems to ensure passage. Every ***** time.
- Bartboy919, on 02/13/2008, -0/+9I like how not a single republican voted nay on this piece of ***** legislation. Some may say that both parties are *****, but i can obviously tell which one is the least ***** up.
- rawheadrex, on 02/13/2008, -5/+18On top of all the awesomeness that is Barack Obama?
He proves again that he is the best, by far, "Tech" candidate in the race for president as well.
'08AMA! - tomzvrl, on 02/13/2008, -0/+7It sucks that this amendment was allowed to go through. The telecoms should have to defend themselves in court if only so we could the extent to which our privacy was violated.
I'm not saying they should be thrown in jail for complying with what government agencies assured them was legal, but I feel the American people should have the right to know what happened.
Now the documents will all be shredded, and the atrocities of the Bush Administration will once again never see the light of day.- kosan, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Sorry but that first sentence was a little unclear, it's obvious you had two thoughts while writing it and it didn't come out right. But just to be clear the amendment DIDN'T pass and Obama voted FOR the amendment. So reading your sentiments it sounds like you agree with me and many others who feel it sucks that the amendment failed to go through since this lets the companies off the hook for breaking electronic privacy laws.
I also agree with what others have said that the government should also be held accountable, however there are corporations who look at the laws and stand up the big brother when he comes knocking and there are others who don't even put up a fight. We need amendments like this to send a message to those who roll over every time a government official knocks on their door and asks for data.- tomzvrl, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1The amendment being voted on was to strip away the amendment giving the telecoms immunity, so I was referring to the latter one in my vague and poorly written statement. Thanks for the clarification.
- kosan, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Sorry but that first sentence was a little unclear, it's obvious you had two thoughts while writing it and it didn't come out right. But just to be clear the amendment DIDN'T pass and Obama voted FOR the amendment. So reading your sentiments it sounds like you agree with me and many others who feel it sucks that the amendment failed to go through since this lets the companies off the hook for breaking electronic privacy laws.
- underdugg, on 02/13/2008, -9/+4President Obama would veto it.
- crazyallen, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5He seems to be on top of his business, not fading to this campaign. He has a lot to juggle and nothing seems to be slipping, thats impressive.
- AriaStar, on 02/13/2008, -0/+10God dammit, I just want my privacy back.
- Shrubber, on 02/13/2008, -0/+8Just so that everyone's clear: the amendment was to DENY the companies immunity if they are implicated in crimes. The amendment failed. So it's a bad thing that the amendment failed. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on that, since the article was somewhat vague, and judging by some of the comments, a few Diggers didn't get it.
- chrisbarr, on 02/13/2008, -3/+5Doesn't he support the Real ID though? Just wondering, cause that's a pretty important issue for me.
- RedPhalanx, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Yes, Obama voted for the Real ID act
- RedPhalanx, on 02/13/2008, -6/+5If Ron Paul was a Senator, you can bet he would have voted to protect privacy rights.
Not that it actually matters....- keepinithamsta, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1He's a great candidate, but not perfect. For a start, he voted AGAINST net neutrality. There's a few other major opinions he has that I disagree with.
- suprememilo, on 02/13/2008, -3/+2I am undecided on this issue so dont flame me.
Maybe the telecoms should have immunity, and the government should be to blame for violating our privacy, because the government could have blackmailed the companies into all of this anyways.- chall85, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1if the government hires the mob to kill someone, should the mob get off and only the govt get punished?
as if the bush administration will ever face the law anyway.
- chall85, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1if the government hires the mob to kill someone, should the mob get off and only the govt get punished?
- Goodanswer, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3The Telecoms should burn in HELL for willy nilly giving up American Rights for some ***** let me cover my eyes so i cant see what Fascism is taking place, Assholes.
again, BURN IN HELL, ASSHOLES!
Justice might be blind, but I am not.
(and neither are you) - piznut, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Even the hardcore Kool-Aid drinking repugnicans in my office have vowed to stay away from the polling booth on election day if Obama wins the primary...He really needs to beat Hillary, or we are ***** for at least another 4 years.
- NiftySwifty, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2Why do we allow these people to play political games with our constitutional RIGHTS? We don't just need a new President, we need new leadership across the board. The telecoms MUST be sued and held accountable.
This is more dangerous than just retroactively making legal what they've done, and thus avoiding pending lawsuits. This sets a precedent that will only encourage them to cooperate with even more egregious wiretapping in the future. - Jordan117, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2This vote is especially funny considering all the times that Clinton attacked Obama for voting "present" on abortion bills back in the Illinois state senate. At least then, he did it because pro-abortion groups wanted him to. But when it comes to the integrity of our private communications, the junior senator from New York is curiously absent...
Also, an important note about this issue. The administration argues that the telecoms should get immunity for handing communications info over to the government because they were acting in good faith -- 9/11 had just occurred, and they believed that helping the feds was in the best interests of national security. There's one problem with that argument, though: THE GOVERNMENT ASKED FOR THIS INFO MONTHS BEFORE 9/11.
From Wired Magazine:
"The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATT's long distance network. The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush. An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001."
Read the original story at http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo ...
This was a premeditated violation of the Constitution by the government, and the telecoms had no possible reason to blindly follow along at the time. And now Congress is trying to cover for their crimes. Inexcusable. - whalt, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Clinton couldn't show up because today was the DC, Maryland, and Virginia primary and if she was anywhere in the area it might have looked like she was campaigning for these states which in turn would have given the impression that any of them counted. Which of course they don't. Only the states she wins should count according to her campaign.
- Sibir, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act when that came up. His record on privacy is not so clear. Yes, he had good judgment not to support the war, but where is his judgment on the Patriot Act? To be fair, he explains his vote here http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/051216-the_patriot ... , but his reasoning sounds a bit strained. Why not simply vote "no" on extension?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by