Want to file a lawsuit against a phone company?
If you were hoping that you could hold a major telecommunication company responsible for turning over your private information to the government without a warrant, don’t hold your breath. Apparently they are working really freaking hard to get the white house to prevent them from a lawsuit.
Stomach turning corporate wrongdoing at its greatest.
The government ask for your records illegally, your company obliges illegally, you can’t hold the gov’t accountable and the corporations that did the wrong doing ask the government to give them a pass because, after all, the goverment was the one that was wrong so why should they be held accountable.
fucking disgusting.
Tags: Bush, Bush's Fubar Economy
What is hard to understand is why the paid-schills who lobby for such measures are so short sighted. If these types of bills pass, the loaded gun of illegal, judgement-proof illegal wire-tapping can be used against these whores who now throw money and favors at legislators so that these illegalities can be used now on ‘enemies of the state’.
Its exactly like the torture scenario. Once torture is allowed, its a very short, slippery slope to justification of using torture on you and yours.
Do these idiots see this? They are not sort of like, but exactly like the Jewish ‘Jew Hunters’ employed by the SS.
So the rational for all this is that the lawsuits would bankrupt our telecommunications industry. Bad for the nation. But I’m wondering, just how many people got spied on in order to qualify to file suit? If it’s so many that the class could bankrupt the phone companies then probably it’s a lot. Maybe even us. Sheesh.
It’s simple, y’all hate freedom; you’re freedom haters.
I want a free pass to do something illegal even though I know it is wrong. Evidently if the government, especially the Bush administration, asks you to do something for your country it can’t be wrong. That would be a great message to send to the American public. Hey, your government wants you to … so it is okay. I wonder if they are serving Kool Aid with this bill????
I heard something on the Simpsons that if you’re President, you get three free passes for killing someone. Worked for Cheney at least once, and he wasn’t even President (at least ‘officially’.)
kind of like blackwater…
I’m willing to cut the telcos a deal. I’ll let them off the hook, if they rat out the officials who ordered the illegal wiretapping. That means turning over all documents and fully cooperating with all investigations into the illegal wiretapping.
I like that idea anon.
Okay, so who are these wronged partied whose phones were tapped by the NSA? I read the entire article twice, and found no plaintiffs. Then I went to Electronic Frontiers Foundations website and tried to find some, but couldn’t put anything together through all the legalese, apart from repeated mention of al Haramain. So then I went and looked that up, and it turns out they’re one of the Islamic charity groups accused of diverting money to al Quaida. Notice that I said accused, not convicted, although they’ve been blacklisted at the UN, and by the US Treasury, and a lot of other governmental agencies in assorted countries where they have been operating. So the NSA is guilty of following the money, connecting the dots, what have you, with regards to the financing of terrorist operations. Well duh. Sounds like they’re following the 9/11 Commission recommendations to me.
OK, G. As long as they’re only illegally disclosing customer information for illegal searches on people we don’t like, its ok. Unless of course one of us get’s on the “don’t like” list.
Have any of you guys took a look at the Constitution and the reason behind warrant requirements?
I think the issue is that only the people that have been “actioned” against know that they were tapped. However, if the lawsuits are permitted, discovery could open a floodgate of potential plantiffs.
so who are these wronged partied whose phones were tapped
You need to expand your definition of “tapped” and “searcn.”
There are many aspects to the monitoring being done. I think what will come out is that they are basically Tivo-ing the entire Internet – a filtered portion of traffic based on selection criteria installed at telco sites – and are crunching the data in football-field sized server arrays in VA.
How that data is being parsed and stored, nobody knows. They may not be interested in your blog post today, but maybe it will turn up in some related investigation tomorrow.
So it is a bit antiquated to picture an individual phone line being tapped. It’s all of us.
Nobody is “illegally disclosing customer information,” as you oversimplify, Dis. Maybe I’m leaning too much on my military intelligence background, but I view electronic communications surveillance of this type not as breaking into people’s cars in a mall parking lot, but rather as sitting on the side of the highway with a radar gun. You spot a guy doing 75, then you pull him over. Then you run his plates, then you ask for license & registration, and so on. What needs to happen is for the FISA law to be updated so that we can monitor electronic communications in the same way we monitor electronic funds transfers. Otherwise, everything becomes fruits from a poisoned tree.
G, the difference between the radar example and a phone conversation is the expectation of privacy. But even that is no protection from poisoned evidence if you don’t need warrants or habeus anyway.
These protections were put into the Constitution for good reason. The underlying foundation is that if you give someone the power to abuse life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they will.
So just how do you go about getting these warrants, if you’re not allowed to be suspicious of anything, or collect information, or anything else but sit in your police station waiting for informers to come to you?
That’s easy, G. Just revert back to government practices used prior to the Constitution. Torture the shit out of anyone you suspect, or who is unpopular with the current ruling elite, or anyone whose property you want to steal, etc.
The Constitution really is an amazing thing if followed.
Read The Federalist Papers. All this stuff on the blogs is a rehash of the reasoning the authors of the Constitution used to write it.
The constitution allows the judicial branch to decide who can have their privacy invaded and who cannot. As for the Tivo thing, you can now listen to conversations for 3 days without getting approval, and the FISA court can retroactively approve it.
Why is this so hard to live with?
So much for fighting terrorism with a law enforcement mentality. I really tried, but it just doesn’t work, or at least you two are unable to explain it. Until you do, the only recourse is to fight them over there, because we’re not allowed to over here. Thanks for the exchange, though.
Goddamit G, abrogating the protections of the Constitution because of ‘exceptional danger’ is an act specifically proscribed by the guys who wrote the damn thing. Once you do away with a protection, for any reason whatsoever, you weaken the document that has held us together and made us the best country in the world.
Just as an example. The Nisei of California (second generation Japanese) were interned and their property confiscated after the Pearl Harbor attack. Justice Black of the US Supreme Court stated in his memiors that this was the worst decision he made in his career, and if he had another chance, he would have freed the Nisei.
As it turns out, the property and businesses were expropriated by whoever was politically powerful in the area.
This kind of shit is exactly why we entered into our Revolutionary War. These kind of abuses are anathema to our model of government.
they’re bad, G, they’re real bad.
“G, the difference between the radar example and a phone conversation is the expectation of privacy.”
Since when is there a Constitutional guarantee of privacy on communications. The government has many times in its history had the ability to open written communications (mail) and investigate things. Why would telephones be any different? If you are having a private conversation within the confines of your own house, then yes, you expect privacy. But phones today and always have, gone out over a network of interconnecting wires, and now satellites and even the Internet itself. What in that makes you believe you have a RIGHT to privacy? G’s radar gun analogy is actually quite accurate. If you don’t want to get pulled over, don’t drive. Your conversation won’t get flaffed unless you are saying things which raise flags. If you are concerned about that, then conduct your conversation in person. That IS guaranteed. Telecommunications is not.
Sorry to break the news to you. Everything you claim is “ILLEGAL” is pretty much not.
Chris, you need to talk to a first-year law student.
Since when is there a Constitutional guarantee of privacy on communications.
Chris is right. I just checked the Fourth Amendment, and it doesn’t even mention telephones or the Internet!
Ah, the piffle put up by GRex and Chris. GRex can’t conceive of a way to get probable cause of terrorist activity or connections unless the government listens into random phone calls. By that logic, the government shouldn’t be able to get probable cause for suspecting someone engaged in mafia activity or trading in child pornography. Except they do. They get tips and follow them up, etc. The same w/ terrorist activity.
Then Chris brings out the old saw that there isn’t a right of privacy protected in the constitution. But not only does the constitutional right to have a warrant issued to you before the cops search your house rest on the premise of privacy, the 9th amendment explicitly recognizes the protection of rights generally recognized as extant which are not explicitly enumerated in the constitution. The right of privacy is the classic example; in fact, one which has been explicitly cited in case law.
There used to be a time when the word “conservative” had a philosophical meaning. I can barely remember the time. It all but died out in the mid 70s w/ the advent of Reagan. One of the things it used to mean is taking a strong stance for individual civil liberties.
But look at the “conservative” Republicans today. When a Repub President wants to listen into the phone calls of anyone he wants WITH NO EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT & REMEDY FOR ABUSE WHATSOEVER, they roll over and let the Prez have his way.
That shows you what “conservative” means today. It simply means support your party leaders come what may and never take a strong stand against them. It means being a true believer.
Dana says, “That shows you what “conservative” means today. It simply means support your party leaders come what may and never take a strong stand against them. It means being a true believer.”
This attitude in China gets you Party membership. This attitude under Stalin got you Party membership and a two-room apartment with heat at least once a week. This attitude in Myanmar allows you to keep breathing.
Chris; seriously. You can’t be that stupid. I’m getting the feeling that you must be around 16 or 17 years old.