 
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
edit:
June 19th, @05:02PM
| Partners in Crime. Are there any politicians willing to stand up for what's 'right' out there any more!?! Instead of the ones that stuff their pockets for their re-election campaigns.  | |
|
 | 
DjVaGGo
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Astoria, NY
edit:
June 19th, @05:02PM
| Re: Partners in Crime. NO  | |
|
| raptor1418
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Denver, CO | Welcome to business representative government. "We the People" don't seem to matter in government eyes anymore. | |
|
| | Shoreline
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
Santa Clara, CA
| Re: Partners in Crime. said by raptor1418  :Welcome to business representative government. "We the People" don't seem to matter in government eyes anymore. The idea of campaign finance reform comes up time after time, and none of them do anything about it.
Goes to show why companies have turned down the QA and turned up the marketing. Because people are stupid and let people sell them crap without giving them the product.
No surprise why the same stupid people keep getting elected, and why so many are in debt, as a few examples.
In regards to "we the people", that means, to Democrats, simply saying crap people who take a poll want to hear. They're basically like those who want local measures passed. They hire a marketing firm to find out what people want and the way to word it to get them to vote. They use statistics (actual formulas, not just looking at numbers or making them up) to find out what most people want to hear -- which words have the highest probability of succeeding per demographic, then proceed to tell it to them to get the vote, then make good on nearly none of their promises. Just helping friends, and themselves, of course.
Republicans (or maybe conservatives) simply care too much about everyone else's bedroom while completely pretending the skeletons in their closet don't exist, while pretending things that don't exist (or never did), like Jesus, do. The congregation votes based on things they hate, which, over the last few decades, include Blacks, Gays, Mexicans, Arabs, white women marrying black men. If it isn't turning back the clock on social progression, it's clearly Republican (conservative).
The FISA thing is certainly bipartisan. Because the rights of the constituents it affects matters for crap, so both sides can bargain away our rights. Hell, that's why Bush wants retroactive immunity for the telcom companies (Verizon/AT&T, for example). Wouldn't need retroactive immunity if they were doing something that was legal in the first place. FISA, a.k.a. the tools to "fight terrorism" were there all along. The administration just decided they didn't need no stinkin' rules or oversight or separation of powers. Which has been the common theme since January 2001.
As every year passes, I'm more and more glad I don't vote for either. I also enjoy hearing retards tell me I'm throwing away my vote by not singing the tune to a party line, as in, not taking it up the backside from the people who's name I'm chanting.
--
Moore/Alexander 2008
Conservatives love religious-like aphorisms so here's one: "Freedom isn't free. It's Made in China." | |
|
| | ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by raptor1418 :Welcome to business representative government. "We the People" don't seem to matter in government eyes anymore. It has a name, it's called Fascism, and Democracy is relegated to being a trite little outdated theory. | |
|
| | 
KenNeon
@bea.com | I think you meant WEE on the people. | |
|
| |
| |
Pv8man999
@wideopenwest.com | Re: Partners in Crime. yep, and at least obama supports net neutrality | |
|
| | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Yeah- them Chicago politicians are a incorruptable, thoroughly honest bunch 
Just ask Mr. Rezko, Obama's political fixer from back in the day. | |
|
| | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Hardly. | |
|
| | |
| 
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, MI
| If it protects us from terrorists and protects children it must be okay and we should pass it without question, especially if the president says we must.
Everyone is looking short term and not looking long term.
--
How hard does DRM have to bite before business abandon it? | |
|
| | 
DavePR
join:2008-06-04 | Re: Partners in Crime. I sure hope you're kidding. | |
|
| | 
tao
Chaos Impends
Premium
join:2000-12-03
Lansing, MI | And "How hard does DRM have to bite before businesses abandon it? The plural is never otherwise.
GMP | |
|
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| No. They will do whatever the leader tells them to do.
Heck, the constitution has not really be in force since a state of emergency was declare in 1933. Yes we pretend it is but when push comes to shove, "your papers comrade". | |
|
| | ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Partners in Crime. said by n2jtx :No. They will do whatever the leader tells them to do. Heck, the constitution has not really be in force since a state of emergency was declare in 1933. Yes we pretend it is but when push comes to shove, "your papers comrade". Remember that Bush characterized FISA as useless because it was so old. That would mean the US Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on either. The rule of the day isn't the US Constitution, it is Neo-con Daddies leading all the scared-to-incontinence little American bunnies afraid that Osama is going to show up on their front porch and kill them personally. Yep, we're a proud bunch of chicken sh1ts... | |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Why blame the telcos Seriously- the ones people should be going after are the administration officials... I don't see why anyone is ranting about attacking corporate entities- if the administration officials weren't pressuring the telcos to give up data then there would be no problem.
But of course, it's easier to go after companies in civil court than to attack the real root of the problem... | |
|
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Why blame the telcos Sure, but most people don't care - sadly.
Even fewer care that its being done at all - sadly.
Fewer still, wish to come close to doing anything about it - sadly.
Of any who are left - they've gone for trying to sue ma bell - and are apparently going to fail miserably at best.
Whatever happens, our kids-kids will probably laugh at the idea that anyone in the past thought that their communications, or lives for that matter, had any expectation of privacy at all.
By the time kids these days have kids of their own, we'll be well on our way to a complete idiocracy that's already ready for a loving big brother. | |
|
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, MI
| said by EPS :Seriously- the ones people should be going after are the administration officials... I don't see why anyone is ranting about attacking corporate entities- if the administration officials weren't pressuring the telcos to give up data then there would be no problem. Or, the Telcos could have said we can't do that it is against the law unless we have a warrant and then we will be happy to give you whatever is covered in the warrant.
Both are to blame.
--
How hard does DRM have to bite before business abandon it? | |
|
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Why blame the telcos And I'm sure that would have made the government go away. Yes, certainly. And there would be no regulatory retribution, correct? Oh, sure.
Why should the responsibility be on any non-governmental entity to determine whether the government's requests are legal or not? When the government makes a demand, claiming national security, of a company, the company should not have to contact its legal department first.
But of course, the officials can't be held responsible until they're out of office, and even then only if the future AG decides to press charges- it's so much easier to go after the essentially powerless entity. (A telco, even one as big as "the new" at&t, has NO leverage compared to the United States Government, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise) | |
|
| | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
edit:
June 19th, @08:59PM
| Re: Why blame the telcos said by EPS :Why should the responsibility be on any non-governmental entity to determine whether the government's requests are legal or not? When the government makes a demand, claiming national security, of a company, the company should not have to contact its legal department first. The We only did what we were told to do argument was disqualified by both the Mei Lei massacre, as well as the Nuremberg trials, to name but two instances where that pathetic excuse was trotted out and then subsequently shot down and thrown out.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: Why blame the telcos zing! | |
|
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
June 19th, @09:22PM
| said by major marco :The We only did what we were told to do argument was disqualified by both the Mei Lei massacre, as well as the Nuremberg trials, to name but two instances where that pathetic excuse was trotted out and then subsequently shot down and thrown out. Usual hyperbole. There is a law which allows telcos to participate as they did when the AG certifies no warrant is necessary. You want the telcos to determine the AG is wrong. There is no provision in the law for that.
See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B): »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
The fact that the immunity deal was revised to essentially say the same thing as the law goes one step further toward showing there is substantial support that the telcos acted according to the law.
You may not like it. But comparisons to the Holocaust is childish at best.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Re: Why blame the telcos Mark, to continue our exchange from a few months back--just to recap, you are absolutely correct in stating that US Code allows companies to wiretap without a warrant if the AG certifies that no warrant was necessary. But there's one key problem here: even when the AG's certification lapsed, the telcos still let the warrantless wiretapping program continue, despite the lack of any legal justification for the program.
Let me elaborate. In 2004, John Ashcroft (then AG) had been drafting a letter certifying the wiretapping program's legality every 45 days. Each letter was only valid for 30 days, at which point the certification lapsed. To ensure the continued operation of the wiretapping program, a new letter was prepared before the previous one had lapsed.
In March 2004, Ashcroft temporarily stepped down as AG due to emergency gall bladder surgery. For a few days, James Comey served as acting Attorney General, during which time Ashcroft had no official powers.
But there was a problem--the reauthorization deadline was approaching, and Ashcroft lacked the authority to sign off on it as he had been doing. So Andrew Card, then White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto Gonzales came to James Comey and asked him to recertify the wiretapping program.
Comey said no. Amazingly, Card and Gonzales then went to Ashcroft--still recovering from a serious surgery--and tried to get him to sign off. Obviously, Ashcroft refused, as he had no legal standing while Comey was acting AG. Comey resigned a few days later, and the program was recertified--but not before it had lapsed for a few crucial hours.
Mark, if in fact the program continued after the certification had lapsed, then how can you argue that the telcos didn't blatantly break the law? We know that domestic citizens were being wiretapped, so FISA exceptions don't apply here.
The law you cite--passed by Congress--explicitly requires the AG himself to certify all warrantless domestic wiretapping. Period.
more info here-
»www.huffingtonpost.com/shayana-k···928.html
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html | |
|
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
June 19th, @10:22PM
| Re: Why blame the telcos said by jaminus :But there's one key problem here: even when the AG's certification lapsed, the telcos still let the warrantless wiretapping program continue, despite the lack of any legal justification for the program. Comey's testimony says it was certified without the AG: »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/ (see 2/3 down). Since the AG works for the President, one could argue he can stand in for the AG. Personally I don't like that. I'd like to see it litigated.
But, at least we're past denying that the law exists and applied to *everything* before and after that one-year period (before Ashcroft was replaced by Gonzalez). I congratulate you for that monumental improvement in the discussion here. 
Mark | |
|
| | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| said by amigo_boy :said by major marco :The We only did what we were told to do argument was disqualified by both the Mei Lei massacre, as well as the Nuremberg trials, to name but two instances where that pathetic excuse was trotted out and then subsequently shot down and thrown out. Usual hyperbole. There is a law which allows telcos to participate as they did when the AG certifies no warrant is necessary. You want the telcos to determine the AG is wrong. There is no provision in the law for that. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B): » www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.htmlThe fact that the immunity deal was revised to essentially say the same thing as the law goes one step further toward showing there is substantial support that the telcos acted according to the law. You may not like it. But comparisons to the Holocaust is childish at best. Mark Mark Mark Mark. As someone else has already suggested, please don't forego your present career for one in legal writing. Just because you trot out the same section of the United States Code in post after post after post, trying desperately for someone, somewhere to credit you, it doesn't mean you're persuasive or even a little bit on the mark.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Why blame the telcos said by major marco :Just because you trot out the same section of the United States Code in post after post after post, Ok. What are we supposed to do with that law? It must be there for a reason, right? It says telcos are allowed to handover data if the AG certifies a warrant isn't necessary. So, when would that apply?
I wish I could selectively choose which laws are meaningful.
Mark | |
|
| | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
edit:
June 20th, @09:49AM
| Yeah but those are criminal acts. This bill doesn't grant telcos criminal immunity from any laws they violated. | |
|
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | wow, you sound amazingly like amigoboy. same rant commentary and all... | |
|
| |
brickwallattack
@rr.com | i'll bet you How much you want to bet they walk away untouched and with new federal contracts as punishment.
what a waste of time and money these guy can do no wrong. Crime really pays in the united states and this is the proof of it. | |
|
DJ_Kismuth
join:2001-11-25
Chicago, IL | Pffft They can get away with ANYTHING imaginable when labeled for "the sake of national security." | |
|
| |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Pffft said by TK Junk Mail :... then "we" are being represented in this decision. no, the telecom companies are being represented in this decision. | |
|
| | raptor1418
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Denver, CO
 ·Mesa Networks
·Comcast
| What part of "we" do you think the elected represent? I sure don't think they have "we" in there minds when voting on new laws, bills, amendments, etc... They just have "$$$" on the mind and lots of $$$ only come from big business. It doesn't matter who "we" vote into offices. They all tend to vote towards big business. | |
|
|
| Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Come on people That site deserves a bump. EFF has made it easy to find out what your congressman/woman's track record has been on the issue and how to contact them.
FWIW, they are trying to sneak this through as fast as they can. The vote is scheduled for Friday. Meanwhile, the text of the legislation hasn't made it to Thomas from the GPO yet. From what I've read Pelosi and Hoyer are the ones trying to ram this through.
Congresswoman DeGette's (1st CD in Colorado) office said that there wasn't even a bill yet so they couldn't say how she'd be voting, only that they were watching the issue carefully.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
June 19th, @06:39PM
|  If you want a POV on this other than from the EFF; see this
It appears that the long and politically charged debate over renewed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority is finally being settled in Congress, with the private sector protected from litigation orchestrated by a coalition of privacy absolutists, angry White House foes and trial lawyers. Jed Babbin of Human Events summarized( » www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27078 ) our personal view of the issue in a column today: "These lawsuits aren't merely the latest evolution in class action ambulance chasing. They are a form of 'lawfare': the use of the courts to interfere in America's conduct in the war the terrorists are waging against us." That said, the judicial review will serve to confirm that the telecoms operated in good faith, responsibly and in compliance with lawful orders. The plaintiff's bar will not be able to leverage activist anger into cash payouts, achieving foreign policy ends by suing the the private sector. And good corporate citizenship is, if not rewarded, at least not punished with crippling multimillion-dollar lawsuits.
»majorityleader.house.gov/docUplo···_xml.pdf
Here is the House Majority Leader's( a Dem by the way) news release on the bill:
»www.majorityleader.gov/in_the_ne···eID=2403
And some facts about the bill that the EFF conveniently ignores:
»ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKg···91DBHP81
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment bill also would:
- Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas
- Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval
- Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them
- Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided it is obtained within a week
- Prohibit the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to superseding surveillance rules in the future.
The new FISA bill, if it becomes law, would expire in 2012.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| |
| |
| | |
Spyguy2
@lightpath.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail
| Go 4 It I dont have a problem with it. If you aint talking or emailing Hamas or Iran you wont have a problem. I hope it passes.
What a bunch of Liberal whiners. | |
|
|
See 17 replies to this post |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Unconstitutional law If this passes, it will be an ex post facto law, which means it is making what was an illegal act somehow now legal, thus, it is unconstitutional. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
mcmillan
join:2001-04-15
West Bloomfield, MI
| We MUST stand for what is right. Politicians are prostitutes. If we offer them power they will offer services.
What we need is citizen lobby. Same principle, difference being to act in the interest of freedom and justice.
Lobbying works, now if we only could organize to pressure those people ( I almost wrote "gentlemen") | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: We MUST stand for what is right. said by mcmillan :Politicians are prostitutes. If we offer them power they will offer services. What we need is citizen lobby. Same principle, difference being to act in the interest of freedom and justice. Lobbying works, now if we only could organize to pressure those people ( I almost wrote "gentlemen") What we need is to keep corporate money out of politics. Of course, with a judiciary packed in favor of the corporatists, any such attempt that isn't a constitutional amendment will be declared unconstitutional, despite every individual within a company being perfectly free to contribute to any cause they desire.
Restricting politicians and their aides from immediately taking up lobbying once they leave would do a lot, since aside from campaign contributions, that's how the money is funneled to them.
I suppose the first step is to get laws passed in 33 states that reduce the power of lobbyists in those states, since it's obviously not going to happen on the federal level.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  VICTORY!
| |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing | flip flop LOL at the people supporting this who will turn right around and oppose similar measures if a president is elected from the other party. | |
|
|
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Reject King George's orders get Nacchioed Uhh... I'm pretty sure his conviction had a bit more to do with the fact that he was a crook rather than his refusal to play ball with the government.
He was found guilty by a jury; that a new trial was ordered does not imply innocence. | |
|
|
|
|
|
Revised FISA Bill Goes to Vote Tomorrow
Reject King George's orders get Nacchioed
How quickly we forget the treatment that Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest Communications experienced. He rejected King Georges orders to turn over customer records to the NSA, because he believed such action might be illegal. His reward was to be indicted for insider trading in December 2005. Please see attached link:
Ron Paul a no show?