digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Phone Companies Off the Hook

reuters.com — Spy bill could shield phone companies from suits - U.S. telephone companies that cooperated with President George W. Bush's warrantless domestic spying program could be shielded from lawsuits under an electronic spy bill finalized on Thursday by congressional and White House...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • WiseWeasel, on 06/20/2008, -4/+95Traitors! Time to defend the constitution from the domestic enemies in our legislature.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/20/2008, -0/+26What's so bad about what they're doing that they have to hide behind laws?? Apparently they need more, and you know what that means: The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.

      These are traitorous actions, usurping liberty and establishing an entitlement class of corporations which are unaccountable for their complicity in criminal activity by the state.
      • samthurston, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2The good news is that since this is mostly a constitutional issue, the immunity laws could very well be overturned by SCOTUS
    • Jimbob200, on 06/20/2008, -11/+2Stop talking out your arse. Watcha gonna do about it, for real?
      • WiseWeasel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Call out each and every one of these creeps in their next election, encouraging people to support their opponents, along with deciding my own vote in the next congressional race on this issue. There are many informative sites to help out, and like-minded people willing to do their part to inform voters. Just about everyone on the internet is united against this type of policy, and something's got to give. Look for a lot more helpful voter information projects in time for the next elections.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Sooner or later someone is going to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
    • InetRoadkill, on 06/20/2008, -0/+25The vote is scheduled in the house tomorrow. It's extremely important that everyone take a minute and call their representative to oppose giving the telcos blanket immunity to this outrage. Go here to get the phone number of your representative:

      http://www.stopthespying.org/

      It will only take a minute of your time. Tell them you oppose HR 6304 because of the telco immunity provision. Don't let Bush and his cronies get away with this.

      • Skooma714, on 06/20/2008, -0/+10They will promptly not care about your call and go roll in their pile of money and kidnapped children.
      • didiman, on 06/20/2008, -6/+1I called and told them I support it
      • nosecohn, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4I couldn't get through by phone, so I sent emails.

        The sick thing is that most of the Democrats are supporting the bill, just like they supported the Iraq War resolution, Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, etc. The Democratic party has a majority in both Houses under a Republican president with the lowest approval ratings of all time, and still the leadership just rolls over to every Republican whim. What's the point of voting for them if they just capitulate on everything?
      • homercles337, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1My reps already oppose it. Ahhh, Boston, MA...
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+11But aren't our friends in the legislature under an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic???

      Perhaps we can get them tried for perjury? If you put your hand on a bible, and make that oath, and then you violate the constitution, doesn't that make you guilty of perjury?

      Holy *****! I've always said that a congressman or senator could pass a law that violates the constitution at will, and it would be left up to the Supreme Court to decide its constitutionality.

      Now I'm starting to think that every congressman or senator who votes yes on a bill that violates the constitution could be tried for perjury.

      I used to think that someone who was wronged by an unconstitutional law had to bring it all the way through the serpentine court system, up to the supreme court.

      Now I have an idea.

      There might be a more direct path. Any of the majority who voted for a law that violates the constitution could be brought to trial by any of the citizens of their state or district for perjury.

      God, I only wish that is ground breaking. I have a feeling the establishment knows how to counter this idea, but if this is a new idea by any means, I pray it gets used quickly and decisively, before they adjust the system back in their favor again.
      • samthurston, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1"I've always said that a congressman or senator could pass a law that violates the constitution at will, and it would be left up to the Supreme Court to decide its constitutionality."

        That's what the SCOTUS is there for.

        Senators don't have to be lawyers. They needn't be constitutional scholars. They need only reflect the desires of their constituency.

        If they could manage that, they'd be golden.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Yes, but I'm wondering if maybe it doesn't need to be taken to the supreme court, by a person who has been wronged by the law. Perhaps it can be much simpler, by going after the person for violation of thier oath of office.

          Maybe it wouldn't nullify the law, but it would certainly make the price for passing such laws higher so that legislators would think twice before doing so in the future.

          The President could, maybe, also be subject to that legal tactic, making him think twice before signing a bill into law.
    • Skooma714, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Revolution lol wut that?
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3No revolution. Just the fair exercise of law.

        We live in a democracy that has evolved into a republic that is being usurped by special interests to try to make it an empire.

        We are a democracy, there has been no adjustment to our constitution. Anything that deviates from our constitution is a violation of federal law, and not in our best interests as citizens, fathers, mothers, etc.
    • david76, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4This is HR 6304 to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

      Here is a link to the House member directory which contains links to all of the contact information for your representative:
      http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html

      Even if you just leave a message, it is important you voice your opinion. Remember, these are YOUR representatives; they work for YOU.
  • dorkino, on 06/20/2008, -7/+3Well duh.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+6I agree.

      I've been trying to convince people that we've moved beyond the point where the FBI and police agencies violated the law when undertaking wiretaps without court orders, since 1994, and they have now codified it with federal law, to make it legit. Everyone either said I was wrong or told me to "put your tin foil hat back on" which is funny, because most of those people probably really did wear tin foil hats, or believed the aliens were probing their asses as they slept. But the facts are:

      The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010). In its own words, the purpose of CALEA is:

      To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
      CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities. Common carriers, facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service – all three types of entities are defined to be “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of CALEA section 102. The driving force in adopting CALEA was the FBI's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible. Since the original requirement to add CALEA-compliant interfaces required phone companies to modify or replace hardware and software in their systems, U.S. Congress included funding for a limited time period to cover such network upgrades. CALEA was passed on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995.


      This is not a law to prevent law enforcement from being cut out from their ability to listen in on phone calls with proper court warrants. This was a law that basically forced telecoms to create "ports" where law enforcement and intelligence could plug in at will to whichever phone call or electronic communication they desired.

      If you know the history, then you understand that often police and intelligence agencies would tap into copper wire phone lines, often in the basement of a brooklyn or manhattan apartment complex, to listen into mafia communications. They never admitted those calls to court, they just used it for intelligence, to figure out patterns and contacts.

      With the advent of packet-based communications, they feared the loss of a gold mine. So they overreached and created a law that requires every telecom provider to basically provide a "port" for law enforcement and intelligence agents so that they can continue that practice.
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Your perjury rant was a little on the unhinged side, but this was a nicely written post. Thanks Phil.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1unhinged? Why?
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Bjorski,

          Why was that unhinged? I will admit that it was a little bit on a string of consciousness, and awareness.

          I'm thinking that we no longer need to wait for the affected to work their way up to the Supreme court, in order to strike down unconstitutional laws. I'm thinking that by the very act of a congressman or senator taking the oath to defend the constitution, that we can circumvent the establishment, and return power to the people by making it possible for the very act of voting for constitution violating laws to be an act of perjury.

          Isn't that perjury, if American Politics recognizes it, worth something?
        • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Maybe a breaking of a contract.

          I mean, I agree with you, but you'll never, EVER be able to hold someone liable for "perjury" in a system such as this. If everything was cut and dry according to the constitution, we really wouldn't need any further government, just enforcement.

          So, I agree with your sentiments, but your proposal just isn't realistic in the least.

          I think a first good step would just be to honestly prosecute the people in office that DO break laws, instead of turning a blind eye to their transgressions, and then even when something DOES get investigated, to let them take campaign funds and divert them to a "cover my ass" fund.

          Any lawmaker caught violating laws should be held at DOUBLE the punishment for a non-lawmaker. They should know better for ***** sake.

          But as long as we have corporate money in the political process, things will never, EVER change.

          So again, I agree with your sentiment, but it would never be able to be put into practice.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Bjornski, If everyone understood the same reality that you and I understood, we wouldn't be in the bad situation we are in now.


          It's called "intellectual Honesty". We seem to be a minority when it comes to intellectual honesty.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2bjornski, if by the very act of voting for a law which violates the constitution, shouldn't that make a legislator guilty of perjury?

          If a legislator took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

          If they were to then vote for a law that violates the very constitution they swore on a bible to defend, wouldn't that make them a criminal?
        • bjornski, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Maybe if the oath is changed to "or face penalty of perjury", it might work.

          I took an "oath" when I got married too.

          Divorced now. Should I be arrested?
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1That is not an oath, in the legal sense. I'm not sure, but I think in terms of the law, those "vows" are merely answers to questions posed by a justice of the peace or priest or other religious figure during a ceremony.

          However, legal oaths, like "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god" can lead to people being put in jail for perjury if it turns out they in fact did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Scooter Libby knows that one first hand.

          I'm pretty sure, too, that Military Officers can be charged for violating their oath, as well.
  • Pyehole, on 06/20/2008, -3/+81We have no friends in congress on either side of the partisan divide.
    • ajb2015, on 06/20/2008, -1/+28kucinich
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -2/+23+ Ron Paul
    • chikara8, on 06/20/2008, -0/+9Russ Feingold
    • stinkymonkey, on 06/20/2008, -0/+18Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) wrote today on his website:

      “I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name."
    • nakani, on 06/20/2008, -0/+9Robert Wexler
      www.wexlerwantshearings.com
    • samthurston, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3We?

      You must not work for one of the major oil companies.
    • UltraDavid, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Wow, you guys can name 5 people, fewer than one in every hundred congresspeople.

      I hope I won't see another Congress as disappointing as this one again in my lifetime.
  • bwjacket, on 06/20/2008, -7/+1I see what you did there, Mr. Clever.
  • rationalbeats, on 06/20/2008, -3/+52Laws? Who needs them?

    I mean it's not like our Nation was founded upon them...
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2These aren't laws in the respect that they establish a precedent of equality and respect for liberty with a system that permits people to seek justice. No, these are entitlements which establish protected classes which are not accountable for their activities.

      It's not enough to ask for a rule of law, you should see the logic in defying bad laws and abiding rather by the principles of non-aggression, because you cannot expect a system such as this, as stacked against the individual as it has become, to actually protect your rights. The judges and legislators will defer to the rulings and legislation they have bound themselves to under the foolhardy guise of protecting the nation.
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -0/+9Our nation was truly founded on Laws. Because that was the whole point of our Republican government. The government is not above the law, and the laws were to to restrict their power.

      We have really lost our way.
    • Skooma714, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4haha.


      Laws aren't there to protect the people from the powerful. It's there to protect the powerful from the people.
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2*scribbles down quote in collection*
  • Hetman, on 06/20/2008, -2/+39This has to be stopped. This will essentially destroy the 4th amendment. That would be horrible.
  • JohnA, on 06/20/2008, -2/+32Why hasn't Obama used his massive influence to stop this capitulation in its tracks?
    • HallEffected, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7hmmm i wonder...

      oh wait he's a U.S. Senator.
      • locojones, on 06/20/2008, -4/+7Maybe because Obama can barely be bothered to show up and vote anymore.
        • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5Obama's for changing the country but he doesn't vote in congress because he is too busy with a campaign?? how ***** weak
        • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2But when McCain, Hillary and Paul did that, it was just fine?

          Trust me. I KNOW they were elected to do their damned jobs. And I also feel that taking TWO ***** YEARS out to campaign and fund-raise is redonkulous.

          But during campaign season, I can somewhat understand. For all 4 of the candidates above. 6 months out from the election, it's part of the job. 2 YEARS BEFORE the election is just corruption of the system.

          Though this IS the age of telecommuting. There's not a reason in the world they can't videoconference in to voice their vote and have it cast by proxy.

          A political term should NOT be 50% fund-raising. It's sad to see that it's the only thing that seems to matter anymore.
        • bjornski, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Obama's "no-vote" record is getting as bad as Ron Paul's.

          At least one of them can blame a campaign.
  • Fratz, on 06/20/2008, -2/+46At least we know this: The existence of this bill confirms that the telephone companies broke the law. So at least we know that, although we may not be able to do a damn thing about it now.
    • nakani, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4"... although we may not be able to do a damn thing about it now."
      The bill hasn't passed yet!
      • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4This is just another bill.

        Read about CALEA.

        The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010). In its own words, the purpose of CALEA is:

        To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
        CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities. Common carriers, facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, and providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service – all three types of entities are defined to be “telecommunications carriers” for purposes of CALEA section 102. The driving force in adopting CALEA was the FBI's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible. Since the original requirement to add CALEA-compliant interfaces required phone companies to modify or replace hardware and software in their systems, U.S. Congress included funding for a limited time period to cover such network upgrades. CALEA was passed on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995.
  • xOKxWhy, on 06/20/2008, -7/+2Well, tell them to hang up :P
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1No, just talk in code.

      Hey man, can you pick up a liter of mountain dew on your way over to my house? That's a pound of Shishkaberry or Ak47. If you wanted an eighth or a quarter, you'd ask for six pack or a twelve pack of Mountain Dew. Or maybe Dr. Pepper if you wanted Humboldt Orange Bud. Whatever, it is always agreed upon in person, so you can use your cell phone to talk to your supplier.

      I was going to play pool tonight with a group of friends. That's asking for an eight ball of coke.

      I need to return that notebook you left at my house the other night. That is telling your supplier you are going to pay him back.
  • maretten, on 06/20/2008, -7/+1What's next, Silly Penises or something?
  • Revolutionista, on 06/20/2008, -1/+9Is there any good news this week?
    • celkin, on 06/20/2008, -1/+5Firefox 3 FTW
    • nakani, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Today, a young man on acid, realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves... here's Tom with the weather.
  • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 06/20/2008, -2/+26sons of bitches!
  • Revolutionista, on 06/20/2008, -7/+7I'm not so sure the phone companies should ultimately be liable. Any legal entity would just be shut down and dissolved if they decided they wanted to stand up against the unconstitutional will of the Bush Administration. Either way is still a terrible outcome.
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -0/+9Sorry, but ATT knew what they were getting them selfs into. They should have protected their customers instead of jumping like bush said.

      Plus the fact they don't just 'select wiretaps'. ATT just splits the connection and NSA has access to all customers without warrant or oversight.

      Sorry this is full on treason from Bush and ATT
      • Revolutionista, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2While I do agree that the Bush Administration is guilty of treason, I was less apt to pass judgment on the telecommunications companies because I don't know exactly how they were coerced [or went in compliance] with the orders. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be full blame upon the medium of such acts of treason, but rather, should be weighed upon the force in which acted upon it.
        • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Heard of this thing called "net enutrality"? The term "phone companies" is rather misleading at this point. They're tele-communications companies now. They handle a lot more than just voice. I don't think there are more than a handful of actual "mom and pop" phone companies left anymore, and they all tap into the same backbones now.

          There are some major decisions coming down the pipeline.

          They want certain things.......so they'll do certain things.

          It's really not hard to figure out.
        • Fartag, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2But major telecom companies should "know better" according to their legal dept wing, some of whom might have heard about the constitution at least back in high school.

          It's the same category as any company violating privacy without admitting to doing so publicly beforehand. It's like sewing wireless transmitters in your clothes for tracking, and monitoring conversation without telling the wearer, or embedding cameras in your tv / computer / fridge / ... without advertising anything about it on the box.

          AT&T ads should have the "Monitoring ALL of you at your government's request!" disclaimer on every ad if they are to work towards being blameless. Note that this isn't solely for terrorism at all, it _will_ be used against all information crimes, and with DMCA and criminalizing never expiring copyright, that covers a lot of territory.

          Is information sent over the Internet public information? If so then people should have the right to use encryption freely. But if we're happy allowing our society to become spineless and ignorant and to roll over when our government and corporations do illegal things, then we're certainly ready for encrypted communications to be made illegal too!
        • thedarkwolf, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2AT&T
          Your World. Delivered. To the NSA.
    • flameboy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Wrong.
      Quest communications refused the wiretaps.

      One company did the right thing, but nobody talks about it or notices while all the other companies knowingly involved in wrongdoing get a free pass from our government. It's a sad time in America.
    • nosecohn, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Glenn Greenwald is doing an excellent job blogging about this issue over at Salon:

      http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

      One of the most interesting quotes he cites is from "the Federal Judge presiding over the telecom lawsuits -- Bush-41-appointee Vaughn Walker..." In his decision refusing to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, he wrote:

      "...AT&T's alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in Keith. Moreover, because 'the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,' AT&T cannot seriously content that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."

      They most certainly can and should be held liable. If there wasn't a very real threat of that, this bill wouldn't even have been proposed.
  • kenvsryu, on 06/20/2008, -2/+10Ahhh this is how Net Neutrality will die. I was your back you wash mine.
  • Realnemesis, on 06/20/2008, -2/+29We are *****.
    • redxninja, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1Well, at least they are giving us plenty of lotion.
  • Joe11Blue, on 06/20/2008, -0/+20There's a way to defeat this people. It's easy. Vote with your money. Do not procure services from the companies that are partaking with this invasion of your privacy. It's a capitalist market for a reason. If there is a company doing something you don't agree with, simply do not purchase their product's or services.

    Until people stop playing the victim's, and realize that they control the value of corporation's through their purchases. This crap will continue.

    So at the end of your contract, or if you simply can't handle this situation, switch to a company that is not on that list.

    I don't know when people simply gave up all hope and started to simply become shill's to corporation's, but it's quite embarassing to see this trend among modern American's. It's as if they have no other choices out there, so they simply give up hope, and lock-step into the whim's of these corporation's, and the dubious activities they partake in.

    Your life will not end without that cellphone, or that land-line. I didn't have a phone until I was 26, and I did fine. I only purchased one for the sake of my co-worker's. As for a social life. I would rather talk face to face with people about something important than waste money over the phone.

    Call me old-fashioned I guess.
    • Fratz, on 06/20/2008, -1/+8"Do not procure services from the companies that are partaking with this invasion of your privacy."

      I'd normally agree with that sentiment, but the article indicates that companies named in suits are: AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc and Sprint Nextel Corp. With those major, national companies involved, it limits one's ability to harm them by switching to a competitor. In many cases, there are no competitors who weren't involved in this mess.
      • Joe11Blue, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Roger's? T-Mobile? Virgin? They aren't the best, but they aren't part of these betrayal of American value's. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I personally use T-Mobile as they offer what I need in a service for a reasonable price. I've had no issues with their service anywhere I've gone so far either.
        • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3There are more than cel-phones at stake here.

          Of the three companies you listed, I can get 2 of them on cellular phone service, but nothing that actually handles anything like VOIP, landlines or any form of data.

          Those are at stake in this too.

          And again, really, when 2-3 companies own the BACKBONES, or doesn't matter what peripheral company you use.
    • kenvsryu, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3Everyone back to smoke signals!!!
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4You're right. Nobody outside your conversation can see those.....

        TOTALLY secure.
        • thedarkwolf, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3You would encrypt them obviously.

          All my smoke signals are signed with my public key.
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4You are old-fashioned as I know 10 year olds with phone.

      You are 100% correct, if you really are outraged at ATT for their part in Bush's treason, you might have to skip the next iPhone. But for some reason I don't think anyone will.
      • nakani, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Actually I know several people who skipped getting an iPhone because of AT&T's spying on citizens
        • flameboy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3I was one of them, and I convinced others to do the same.
        • thedarkwolf, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Same here. When the iPhone came out people asked if I was going to get one, I said I was not even considering it. whether or not the iPhone is a good enough product to buy, I will not pay for service from AT&T
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2There's a reason I use a $20 disposable phone.
    • Joe11Blue, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3I don't see the fuss over the iPhone. It's just a half-finished gimmick in my eye's. Don't get me wrong Apple does have some nice product's, but the iPhone is certainly not one of them. I've seen better product's in third-world countries.

      They've been streaming video in the Philippine's for 3 year's now, and we only started what last year with any sort of success? If anyone is not aware, the Philippine's is considered one of the poorest nation's in Asia.

      South Korea, which I have no idea why it's a first world-nation other than GDP. Has had phones that work everywhere in the country for a decade now. I can't remember a single time I went without signal there unless I was in a subway. We are talking from the DMZ down here, not just around the city.
      Thailand was very similar.
      • samthurston, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2South Korea is a HUGE manufacturer of high-tech goods.. more so than the USA.
        "I have no idea why it's a first world-nation other than GDP"
        GDP is what we use to judge a nation's wealth. What else would you use? If they decide to spend their money on things other than "south-korean-idol" well that's just a show of their priorities, isn't it?

        Please note that with my use of an apostrophe, I don't mean "multiple nations" but rather "the wealth POSSESSED BY a nation" which is how one typically uses apostrophes if one knows what they are for.
    • Nosferotu, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3You know, I've heard this argument so much with things like gas prices and issues like this immunity thing. I really can't help but think this is a gross misunderstanding of how the whole capitalist economy thing works.

      Yes, businesses that do good are supposed to get large by getting more business, etc. But something like this isn't directly interacting with the consumer, and as such the consumer isn't going to naturally respond. Yes, you're right, if a bunch of people stopped using their service they would suffer - but it's not going to happen, we all know that. Ironically, this solution is often provided by people who are very happy with capitalism, and I think it only serves to underline exactly why capitalism is NOT the most effective, perfect system.
    • notanidiot, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Voting with your money doesn't work, because the most powerful people have much more money, therefore much more voting power.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7America...***** yeah?
  • demonbaby, on 06/20/2008, -0/+28Disgusting. After all the outrage, corporate influence still wins over, and it wins over big. Both Democrats and Republics have failed us tremendously. I'd like to say that some attempt should be made to single out all who voted to approve this, but the majority of people in the US don't even know or care about this issue. "Dancing With The Stars" is still on TV, so what could there possibly be to worry about?
    • AKBryant54, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3I weep for the future of humanity.
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I've stopped giving a *****.

        Things are getting so warped and corrupted now, that I refuse to breed.

        Do what the ***** ya want. I don't care anymore.
  • mrzeero, on 06/20/2008, -3/+6They need to keep the taps in place. It will make it much easier for them to figure out who gets sent to the KBR built detention centers when they declare martial law.
    • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I don't know why people are digging you down.
      • mrzeero, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4Probably because that could NEVER happen in America. Scary times my friend.
  • kosser, on 06/20/2008, -0/+18no more 4th amendment and no more constitution and no more freedom in America.
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7Unfortunately, this is almost the final nail in the coffin for the 4th. Our homes are already subject to search without a warrant from the FBI, and your not allowed to tell anyone they did not have a warrant. Thanks patriot act.
    • CrazyDave303, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1you just hate freedom and America
      • TallestSkil, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1It's just too bad that these are two separate entities these days.
  • Pateep, on 06/20/2008, -7/+0It's with the clam and the sandwiches. Anyone the meat?
  • MoneyMikeM, on 06/20/2008, -3/+0I saw the headline and thought the Phone Companies were really great or unbelievable a la Urban Dictionary. These phone companies are off the hook son! I can't be the only one.
    • CrushThemTorg, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1As did I. I read it and thought: "Damn, someone's a fan of phone companies and can't write."
  • adml_shake, on 06/20/2008, -1/+11$*#(&%@#(!!!!!!! It's not that I think I need to censor anything, but I can't think of a curse word that describes the level of outrage I feel. So fill it in yourself.
    • AKBryant54, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4***** GODDAMN ***** ASSPISSING THUNDERCUNTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Best comment today
    • Pittance, on 06/20/2008, -0/+16/10 ^^ Not great, but decent. Although "thundercunts" did give it a bit of sway. Made me chuckle.
  • Evolutuon, on 06/20/2008, -2/+19Every single politician who votes for this bill should be ***** lynched.
    • nakani, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2You've just been added to a list
    • arthurdent3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2My sentiments exactly.
      If they can't follow the rules then they need to go, and by force if necessary. This is exactly why we have a 2nd Amendment, I think its getting close to the time where we may need to act on it........
      So now you can put me on that list too... To bad everything I said is supported by our own founding fathers.
    • notanidiot, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1String 'em up, boys!
  • goph, on 06/20/2008, -4/+3Wasn't it the DEMOCRATIC led congress that voted for this?
    • fookisgod, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6Yes. that's the problem. No one is standing up for the rule of law. Republicans seem to be OK with giving the president dictator like powers and the Democrats don't seem to mind either.
    • Skooma714, on 06/20/2008, -5/+2Politicians telling us what we want to hear to get elected and telling us to piss off after all is said and done?

      Seriously?

      Oh, Obama '08. Change blah blah blah IM BLACK
  • Mardala, on 06/20/2008, -0/+13The other part of this bill makes it legal for any IT, Telecom type of company to be shielded from future prosecution, whether what they did was illegal, so long as the president says its ok and for national security. So basically they are making into law warrantless wiretapping from now on. These are scary times. Naomi Wolfe explained it well in her books that we are facing a political crisis and don't think for a second that people like Rove and Cheney's ideal 1 party government (aka a fascist state) don't think for a second they are done because of a Democratic majority in Congress and the good chance for a Democratic president. These neo conservatives are about money and power and most of their money comes from big oil and the war machine. This is another reason we HAVE to impeach Bush and Cheney. Now.
    • Rustymetal, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Well said
    • arthurdent3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Oh yea and the democrats are doing such a fine job of fixing it themselves. If they are elected they will continue to do the same. Its funny because the last 2 presidents to ignore the constitution this much were both democrats. It just happens to be a republican this time.
      The only answer to the problem it to elect a Ron Paul or Bob Barr type. But good luck having that happen because all the conservatives are too concerned with the war and all the liberals are too concerned about their gimmes to realize that they are destroying this country.
      I do however agree that they need to be impeached along with 90% of congress for ignoring the constitution.........
  • jonthebishop, on 06/20/2008, -1/+16It isn't too late to stop this, write your senators and reps. The EFF has setup a page to make it easy: http://digg.com/politics/URGENT_Tell_Congress_No_D ...

    They have been fighting this for over 6 months, tell them not to give up now.
  • rottencod, on 06/20/2008, -0/+13Wow, the Dems have done a lot with their "mandate," haven't they? /sarcasm

    Spineless traitors.
    • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2The Global Capitalist party knows who writes their checks...
  • Runyon3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5I'm a Republican and even supported Bush with the intial invasion but now this just goes to show how much of a ***** up can be a President. The one word I saw repeativly was "warrantless" which by my understandings makes ANY evidence illegal in court. Oh yeah and if you vote this bill your destroy one of your amememt rights.
    • samby, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Not directly related to the story, but:

      You don't need a search warrant to make evidence legal in court. Police use 'probable cause' all the time to search people and cars. You usually, but not always, need a search warrant when it is practical to get one, such as searching a house. (Or a phone company's records, as in this story).

      The reason I say not always is because if they arrest you in your house they can search the room where they arrested you if they have a reasonable belief that you might have hidden something there. This is just one of many exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Sometimes they don't even need probable cause. They automatically get the right to search your person if they arrest you, probable cause or not. Also they can automatically search your car if they plan to impound it at the police station, again without giving any kind of reason.
    • Joe11Blue, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-409760251 ...

      It's been said anything you say whether legal or not can incriminate you.
  • Nbonez5, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7That is *****. I WANT JUSTICE!
  • Azriel7, on 06/20/2008, -0/+9Call them up and make it clear that if they pass this, everyone who voted for it WILL be remembered when election season comes up, AND that you plan to convince everyone you know NOT to vote for them.
    • arthurdent3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Good luck getting people to think. Don't you realize that 90% of American don't care. They are too concerned with what Britney Spears and however else in Hollywood is doing to worry about their rights.
  • 140Suffolk, on 06/20/2008, -7/+1It's a WAR you dummies. You can't afford, in a war, to only peek when there's evidence that would qualify for a warrant.
    If terroristA in Karachi is speaking to terroristB in Jersey City we have to know what they're talking about.
    • Hetman, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Ben Franklin
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I believe that Ben Franklin was one of the ones who was in favor of paying protection money to the jihadist Barbary pirates in the late 1700s.

        When their demands kept increasing, we finally had to go to war with them too.
        Or accept having our ships stolen and our sailors kidnapped and enslaved.
    • Praxx, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7I don't recall Congress passing any declaration of war.
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Funny how that works, isn't it?
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Did you know that bin Laden declared war against us? In the nineties?
    • locojones, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5First, your statement is stupid because terrorists are not calling one another on their cellphones or landlines and chatting up their plots to blow up the world. They've been shown to be much more sophisticated than that, using encrypted e-mail, draft emails that never leave a server, etc. They're not dumb.

      Second, if you know terrorist A in Karachi is calling terrorist B in NJ, then you already have all the information you need to get a warrant through the legal channels that have existed in the FISA bill since the 1970s. You can monitor their conversations for up to 72 hours without probable cause entirely to gather enough evidence to go to FISA and get a warrant for continued monitoring. This court rubber stamps most warrants, and to my knowledge, has rarely, if ever, denied a request brought before them.

      If by that time, you can't gather the probable cause necessary to continue the wiretapping, then you should have to give up and do your police detective work the old fashion way. In this country we do not accept unlimited wiretappings based on little more than reasonable suspision or the color of your skin or your country of origin. Yes, the 4th Amendment allows certain exceptions to the warrant requirement, but it is not eviscerated just because we're waging a fictional war against brown people across the globe.
    • stinkymonkey, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3140suffolk,

      You really need to join America someday.
    • 140Suffolk, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1In a war, we can't take the chance of missing important enemy information because there isn't probable cause. It's just too high a bar with too much at stake in a war situation.

      locojones says the the FISA court hasn't denied a requests. That's because they don't give them requests that don't have probable cause. But that's too limiting.

      And locojones exposes his true position when he refers to the WOT as "...a fictional war against brown people across the globe."

      I presume that means he believes that the Sept 11 attack was an inside job. So he finds it easier to believe that hundreds of Americans would arrange to murder their own than to believe that a bunch of 6th century savages who amputate the hands of shoplifters and stone "adulterers" to death were responsible.

  • Tykin3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3I have no legal background, but can't the Supreme Court block this? It doesn't seem to be very constitutional.

    You may say they're all Bush's cronies, but they did give civil rights a win very recently.
    • Timetheos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Yes, they could eventually, but

      1) Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, & Alito are all for this. They don't give a damn about the constitution; they only care about their agenda.
      2) If the court did rule against it, all the Republicans would be screaming "Activist Judges", and the MSM would simply echo the whine.
      • arthurdent3, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1I wouldn't guarantee that all of the judges mentioned would go for this. On the Habeas Corpus case they were dead wrong but some of their other rulings have been very strongly in favor of American Citizens rights and upholding the bill of rights. Remember it was the liberal side of the court that ruled in favor of McCain/Feingold(1st Amendment) and the Eminent Domain (5th Amendment) case. In reality there is no guarantee that the supreme court justices will protect your rights because in my own observation every single justice has had opinions that basically go against what our founding fathers meant when they created the Bill of Rights.
      • flameboy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Which is a hilarious claim.
        The judiciary branch is one of the 3 branches of government meant to check horrific constitutional violations such as this.

        Republicans can scream "activists judges", and we will scream "corrupt congressmen"
      • Pittance, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1They can scream it all they want, but you cant remove a Supreme court justice. They are there for life unless they commit a crime I believed.
    • Skooma714, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Isn't the SCOTUS being activist judges precisely what they are there for?
      • bjornski, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Sadly, yes.

        Works in theory. Entirely different in practice.
  • rironin, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4What's the name of this bill(s)? I'm trying to write to my congresspeople to tell them they are losing my vote if they go along with this, but I can't find the name of the bill in any news article or govtrack. Anyone know the names?
    • Timetheos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Just tell them to vote against telcom immunity; they will know what you are talking about.
    • krnldmp, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5H.R.6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008
  • specialK16, on 06/20/2008, -0/+10Write to your senators, spread the word... whatever comes to your mind, but for the love of God, just ***** do something. I'm not an American, but believe me, things are as bad in here, but since this country is small and insignificant anyways, no one cares. But I keep seeing this sort of news; Bush & Co raping each and every citizen and people just sit and watch the show. ***** it is so ridiculous that even news networks seem to be controlled and manipulated. It does make you wonder, what the ***** is going on!?
    • krnldmp, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4What's going on? Propaganda doesn't work in a world covered in light speed private communication networks. People are learning that the only thing preventing peace and freedom is their own government, and governments are a little "sad" about that.

      That's what's going on.
      • nakani, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1You just hate the government's freedom
  • netsql, on 06/20/2008, -0/+11Fascism
  • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/20/2008, -3/+0Homing pigeons are the hot tip in message sending, anyway. Phone conversations are so "yesterday".
  • stinkymonkey, on 06/20/2008, -1/+10http://dodd.senate.gov
    June 19, 2008

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today made the following statement in response to the compromise reached on the legislation that would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

    “I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.

    “As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American’s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.”
    • arthurdent3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Oh yea his comments are trustworthy. I agree with him but he is no better trying to bail out Countrywide with his current bill. Find somebody who has less baggage to quote. So he thinks Mortgage companies should be protected but not phone companies. Sorry his comments are worth *****........



  • Timetheos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+8Here's a donation page to mount primary challanges against Dems that support telecom immunity:

    http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

    (Yeah, I know I'll be dugg down, but I think some might be interested.)
  • lazerflesh, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2I'd really like to know how many Americans are in favor of this .... maybe a voting thing. Aren't democracies supposed to be about that ?
    • arthurdent3, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!! Thank god. Do you really want mob rule........
      It may not be perfect at times but a representative republic is a lot safer than a democracy.
  • flameboy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7Dear Rep. Campbell,

    I am both saddened and outraged at your support for the new FISA bill (H.R. 6304) and would strongly urge you to alter your current stance. I feel it is imperative for our nation to exercise recourse for the atrocities committed under our current administration against our civil liberties. The companies who participated in the illegal wiretaps did so under pressure from the white house, but that does not excuse their responsibility to act within the law- laws that were clearly defined and understood well by these companies.

    At least one major telecom (Quest Communications) stood up to the illegal and unconstitutional demands of the white house and they have been punished by the Bush administration through the withholding of government DHS contracts and FCC harassment. All the while, the companies complacent in this reprehensible operation are rewarded by congressionally granted immunity. This is simply despicable. What sort of example do you think this sets for other companies? Corporations, particularly large and powerful corporations, may now feel safe cooperating with illegal government activities and may even be ENCOURAGED to do so – an atrocious sentiment that WOULD become a reality were this bill to pass.

    I am a 23 year old living in Town, California and am politically active. I have been following this story since former AT&T technician Mark Klein came forward about the wiretapping and have been continually shocked by the complete contempt the administration, and many parts of congress, seem to have for the constitution. My opinion is representative of the great majority (practically everybody) I associate with and is an extremely important issue to myself and others. I, and many other constituents like me, will be voting in the upcoming election.

    Please, I urge you for the sake of all Americans, do not support this bill. Do not give the telecoms a free pass. There are no partisan “compromises” that can counteract the damage to American civil liberties that telecom immunity would beget.

    Thank you for reading my email.

    Sincerely,

    name, town
  • BlogCrawler, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6Democrats and Republicans - they both make me sick!
  • X86BSD, on 06/20/2008, -2/+6Dear Fellow Americans,

    What the ***** are you thinking! You are beseeched by traitors from all three branches of government. You have allowed the Executive and the Legislative and the Judicial branches to eviscerate the Constitution that we fought and spilled *much* blood over to create for you. You have done nothing as they misinterpreted and re-wrote the intent and letter of the Bill of Rights. You have ceased to be free. You are living under an illusion of what once was. When faced with these kind of abuses to our freedom and liberty we executed the thugs of King George, we deployed snipers, we shot them dead in the streets, we ambushed them along the roads. What the hell are you doing?? Eating Quarter pounders with cheese and watching American Idol! Where are your citizen militias?? Why have you not spilled the blood of the tyrants that have destroyed your Constitution and taken back your freedom and liberty! Are you so weak and foolish to not understand why we gave you the second amendment? After all we bled for, all we sacrificed, all we lost to give you the Constitution and with it your freedom and liberty this is how you thank us? By doing nothing when America is being burned to the ground from domestic invaders. You shame us all and disgrace our memory and sacrifices!

    Sincerely,
    George Washington
    Samuel Adams
    Benjamin Franklin
    Thomas Paine
    Paul Revere
    John Adams
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison

  • phrenzy, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3This is ***** pathetic. Just pathetic. Soccer moms and Nascar dads didn't give two ***** about this. Good lord.

    Of course the neo-cons will say how we can't "punish the telephone companies for cooperating with the president"

    Well, I wonder if they'll still that way when it's President Obama and there is a "need" to monitor conservative groups for potential violence. The power neo-con idiots so willingly give to Bush will eventually be in the hands of a Democrat. Then they'll get to suffer the consequences of their pathetic shortsightedness.
  • s32843, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2It's all about the money - elected officials get money from interests groups not us, in return they work for them.

    We have a government money can buy.

    Don't expect we can get services from them.
  • OBlitiri, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Another action form available through the ACLU: http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=nbSrj3skUP-x_WRp1L ...
  • vbullinger, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2Dose phone companies be off the heazy, fo' sheazy!

    Oh, the title misled me. I thought that they were talking about really cool phone companies. My bad.
  • smurfz, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1There's not justice left in this country.
  • beesaretasty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I paid my taxes to have my rights violated. Now I'm paying more taxes to have them say that it was OK to violate my rights and that they weren't really violated because they hopped in the Delorean and fixed it. ****ing fantastic.
  • sandiegodude, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Only 1 year left of "The Dub" - THANK ***** GOD.

    Now we can only hope Joe Voter out there picks the smart choice instead of McBush!
    • nosecohn, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1One year?! Please, don't scare me like that!

      It's seven months, people... just seven months.

      But with congressional Democrats continuing to cave to his every policy whim, it could be a very long seven months. So much for checks and balances.
    • vbullinger, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I don't know what you're talking about. Barr, Baldwin and McKinney won't be winning, so it'll just be more of the same.

      I knew Obama was going to be president two years ago when I saw the ridiculous propaganda for someone of whom I'd never heard before.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.