Unconstitutional surveillance comes to an end

[iNow]

I know we align much more than not on this topic, and also that the heart of your point is that the government should be punished, not those who supported them.

 

I had the same approach until I read the post by Bascule on the previous page about Google's refusal under analogous circumstances. It reminded me that it's not only possible, but precendented.

[ParanoiA]

I know we align much more than not on this topic, and also that the heart of your point is that the government should be punished, not those who supported them.

 

I had the same approach until I read the post by Bascule on the previous page about Google's refusal under analogous circumstances. It reminded me that it's not only possible, but precendented.

 

I don't think we align much at all. I see elementary class envy being emboldened by those who help to level that envy. It's pretty obvious to me that if we were talking about poor working class americans cooperating with the NSA, you wouldn't be seeking punishment. Only the fact that these are corporations seem to feed this nonsense.

 

Just my opinion, but prejudice is playing a big part here.

 

By the way, I stand by google and their obfuscation. You forget how real and potential "internet regulation" is to companies like this. Some would say they're not doing themselves any favors by not cooperating, while others will point out that AT&T cooperated and tried to be the good guy for decades and was rewarded with divestiture.

[iNow]

I don't think we align much at all.

 

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

 

 

Which, as we all know here at SFN, is buoyancy.

[ParanoiA]

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

 

 

Which, as we all know here at SFN, is buoyancy.

 

Nothing personal, iNow, I'm just not seeing where we line up. I do appreciate that you've heard and interpreted my point though.

[Mr Skeptic]

If the police asked me to shoot a man that was defenseless and in custody, I could get charged with murder even if the police told me to do it. Likewise, in the military, you get told that you are responsible for refusing illegal orders. There's no reason that the telecom companies would not have been familiar with the wiretapping laws that forbade warrantless wiretapping. If they were to be excused for breaking the law, what is to stop them from doing so again? Shall we have a precedent that breaking laws that the executive branch doesn't like is OK?

[Phi for All]

I don't think we align much at all. I see elementary class envy being emboldened by those who help to level that envy. It's pretty obvious to me that if we were talking about poor working class americans cooperating with the NSA, you wouldn't be seeking punishment. Only the fact that these are corporations seem to feed this nonsense.

I get very tired of having my concerns about mega-corporations being dismissed as class envy or leftist liberal ranting. I have been in business longer than some of you have been alive, and I see the kind of stranglehold a free market suffers when these giants border on monopoly and suppress the ability of smaller competitors unfairly with their political and financial clout. And they were getting very good at spin-doctoring the news even before Clinton allowed them to own more of the media.

 

Poor, working class Americans wouldn't have been in a position to violate their clients' trust in this fashion (or at least I can't imagine such a situation). But if this was the ACLU or NAACP that had broken their agreement with their clients to comply with a questionable government request I'd want them to feel the consequences of any legal misdeeds as well. And I'd scream bloody murder if any president wanted to grant them immunity retroactively.

[ParanoiA]

I get very tired of having my concerns about mega-corporations being dismissed as class envy or leftist liberal ranting. I have been in business longer than some of you have been alive, and I see the kind of stranglehold a free market suffers when these giants border on monopoly and suppress the ability of smaller competitors unfairly with their political and financial clout. And they were getting very good at spin-doctoring the news even before Clinton allowed them to own more of the media.

 

With all due respect, my post was specifically aimed at iNow based on a reply from iNow. I have no love, nor any hatred for mega anything. I have a natural negative feeling about them, a distrust, which they have proven true more often then they have not.

 

And I work for one and consistently find myself tangled up in Union pros and cons alongside Company pros and cons, and I think I have an idea of the dynamics at play - everyone seems to be driven by self interest masked in principle and appeals to class injustice.

 

So, while I may have ruffled your feathers here, it wasn't thoughtless. I agree completely with your point about how they impact and undermine the free market with their financial influence.

 

And, I still agree that they should NOT be punished for cooperating with federal authorities during wartime in this case.

 

I would be quite happy if a Wal-mart truck ignored the "no driving on sidewalks" law to get around a traffic jam to get food to a Katrina victim in New Orleans. I believe that telecomm cooperation with warrantless wiretapping was done under similar if not greater exigency.

 

I just don't share the animosity towards these entities and I think it's a horrible example to set. It says that we care more about legal ins and outs than human life in the event of a crisis. When we find ourselves in another crisis, some may be isolated from those who would help, but are afraid of any legal consequences post-crisis.

[Mr Skeptic]

wartime

 

What war?

[iNow]

I would be quite happy if a Wal-mart truck ignored the "no driving on sidewalks" law to get around a traffic jam to get food to a Katrina victim in New Orleans. I believe that telecomm cooperation with warrantless wiretapping was done under similar if not greater exigency.

 

I just don't share the animosity towards these entities and I think it's a horrible example to set. It says that we care more about legal ins and outs than human life in the event of a crisis.

 

You have yet to support your point that this happened under greater "exigency" than at some other time, or that it happened during a time when we were in "crisis," or when "human life was in danger."

 

 

Perhaps you could provide real world examples... something that actually happened... where the telecoms providing our data to the government without a (easy to obtain from FISA) warrant saved lives or prevented a crisis?

 

You've said this more than once now, and I'm just not buying it.

 

Specifically which lives were saved because the government was given information with no warrant?

 

Specifically which crises were averted because the telecoms gave the government information without a warrant?

 

 

If you somehow manage to come up with real world examples to support your comments, then the onus is ALSO on you to demonstrate how those same crises and dangers could not have been averted using the system as it stood, where the telecoms instead followed the law as it was written, simply replying to the governments request, "No, not until you show me the warrant."

 

Give me a break.

[ParanoiA]

You have yet to support your point that this happened under greater "exigency" than at some other time' date=' or that it happened during a time when we were in "crisis," or when "human life was in danger."

 

 

Perhaps you could provide real world examples... something that actually happened... where the telecoms providing our data to the government without a (easy to obtain from FISA) warrant saved lives or prevented a crisis?

 

You've said this more than once now, and I'm just not buying it.

 

Specifically which lives were saved because the government was given information with no warrant?

 

Specifically which crises were averted because the telecoms gave the government information without a warrant? [/quote']

 

I'm talking about the "war on terror". Our country is engaged in wartime activity whether you agree with it or not - lord knows I certainly don't - but a considerable portion of our society has bought into this notion and their opinion matters. I know, kinda weird huh?

 

So, anyway, understanding the obvious pressure and valid dynamics and philosophies concerning fighting terrorism, it's only reasonable to conclude that cooperating with federal authority, even on tenuous legal terms, during "wartime" be given the benefit of the doubt and not subject to hindsight witch hunts. I know if I was against the war but I owned a business and was compelled to cooperate, I wouldn't think it fair to hang me for it afterwards. It's only fair to consider the pressure by the public as well as the government (hell, for that matter the simple possibility of another attack - perhaps being blamed on them if they didn't cooperate, and you see how we like witch hunts so...)

 

Whatever. We're not going to agree, but I did want to at least clear up that the exigency I'm refering to is the war on terror, no matter your take on its legitimacy, nor mine, it is important to most americans.

[iNow]

Terror is an idea, not a sovereign enemy, and you seem to have conceded that you don't agree with our state of war mentality as a result of it. We agree there. We also seem to agree that the government is at fault for making this request while circumventing existing law. That's two major places of agreement.

 

I do challenge, though, your implicit suggestion that this was something done by John Q. Public, and not an international corporate entity with huge swaths of legal teams paid specifically to watch out for such pitfalls and steer the corporation away from them. If it were you or me or some random Joe Schmoe on the street, sure... they should be given some (but not complete) leniency. But it wasn't.

 

It was an illegal act performed by corporations that... not only should know better, but who also have as a mandatory part of their payroll a group of people to watch out for such breaches of legality.

 

It seems that, despite our agreement on those other important parts, we just don't agree on the part where we actually hold corporations accountable to the laws as written. I say they should have followed the law, and since they didn't, the punishment should come (and, also fit the crime...). You seem to say, it is a time of war (let's not go there...) so they need to do whatever the goverment says. I'm not good with that. That makes me a bit sick.

 

If you don't like the laws, get them changed. If you don't follow the laws as written, face the consequence. I refuse to accept this "wishy washy" - "time of war on terror" - "so the laws don't really matter as much" - rubbish.

[ParanoiA]

I say they should have followed the law' date=' and since they didn't, the punishment should come (and, also fit the crime...). You seem to say, it is a time of war (let's not go there...) so they need to do whatever the goverment says. I'm not good with that. That makes me a bit sick.

 

If you don't like the laws, get them changed. If you don't follow the laws as written, face the consequence. I refuse to accept this "wishy washy" - "time of war on terror" - "so the laws don't really matter as much" - rubbish.[/quote']

 

That's not what I said. You still refuse to accept the opinion of half the country. I don't think you're going to understand the decisions being made by the administration if you're going to dismiss their military activity and intentions as invalid by your review.

 

You also refuse to consider their own vulnerability and culpability for action nor inaction in complying with federal authorities. For me, I can't be philosophically consistent in granting a pardon for citizens who act in a crisis but make a mistake in judgement and not consider the same for these companies in this "crisis". Remember, we're talking about spying in the past, not this point forward.

[bascule]

I'm talking about the "war on terror". Our country is engaged in wartime activity

 

Actually, it's not. If you want to get technical about it, there's always the whole Constitution thing and a formal declaration of war. But since that's apparently moot (due to a precedent of undermining Constitutional authority which in my opinion has gone *way too far* now) we aren't at war with a nation. We're not even at war with an identifiable group, or a distinct set of persons. "Al Qaeda" is a name rogue terrorists give themselves to instill fear into the hearts of Westerners. The "war on terror" is as much a war in the traditional sense as the war on illiteracy or the war on drugs. There's no quantifiable opponent. It's a war on ideas.

 

...but a considerable portion of our society has bought into this notion and their opinion matters. I know, kinda weird huh?

 

Judging by recent polls, a considerable portion of our society has changed its mind.

 

So, anyway, understanding the obvious pressure and valid dynamics and philosophies concerning fighting terrorism, it's only reasonable to conclude that cooperating with federal authority, even on tenuous legal terms, during "wartime" be given the benefit of the doubt and not subject to hindsight witch hunts.

 

Violating the Constitution, whenever, whatever, should be subject to the most vicious of witch hunts. The Constitution is the only thing we have separating ourselves from China, North Korea, or Nazi Germany. People who would willingly subvert are traitors and should be treated as such.

 

The Constitution makes provisions about wartime, and to a certain extent I can understand subversions of certain Constitutional stipulations at wartime.

 

However, it also makes provisions about the declaration of war. As far as the Constitution is concerned: we are not at war.

[iNow]

That's not what I said. You still refuse to accept the opinion of half the country. I don't think you're going to understand the decisions being made by the administration if you're going to dismiss their military activity and intentions as invalid by your review.

 

I neither refused nor dismissed any such thing. The decisions, activities, and intentions of the administrations and military are absolutely valid, but even they must operate within the restrictions of the US constitution and legal system.

 

 

Bascule also made some excellent points immediate prior to my post regarding the Constitutionality of this "by name only" war, and how those who go against the Constitution are traitors and should be dealt with as such.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that granting immunity to the telcos is unnecessary. If they acted within the law at the time they have nothing to fear. If they didn't then granting immunity is highly questionable and implies that Bush is somewhat sure there *were* punishable misdeeds. Judicial decision, not executive.

 

I hate seeing voided checks. They upset the balance.

 

Indeed. I like the closing, too. Well said.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, it's not. If you want to get technical about it, there's always the whole Constitution thing and a formal declaration of war. But since that's apparently moot (due to a precedent of undermining Constitutional authority which in my opinion has gone *way too far* now) we aren't at war with a nation. We're not even at war with an identifiable group, or a distinct set of persons. "Al Qaeda" is a name rogue terrorists give themselves to instill fear into the hearts of Westerners. The "war on terror" is as much a war in the traditional sense as the war on illiteracy or the war on drugs. There's no quantifiable opponent. It's a war on ideas.

 

Preaching to the choir, I already agree with all of the above and everyone here already knows that. This is our rhetoric and I believe in it. However, half of our country does not, and they matter. So, when I say "wartime", I mean this crisis that has split our country in two.

 

Judging by recent polls, a considerable portion of our society has changed its mind.

 

Exactly! And we're talking about the PAST, not the present. I know they've changed their minds and I hope they keep it up.

 

Violating the Constitution, whenever, whatever, should be subject to the most vicious of witch hunts. The Constitution is the only thing we have separating ourselves from China, North Korea, or Nazi Germany. People who would willingly subvert are traitors and should be treated as such.

 

I agree. And that would be those we elected in office, not AT&T or Alltel.

 

I neither refused nor dismissed any such thing. The decisions, activities, and intentions of the administrations and military are absolutely valid, but even they must operate within the restrictions of the US constitution and legal system.

 

But you did. You and bascule both keep going on about how the "war" is invalid. Just because WE see this as an invalid, unconstitutional joke does not make it non existent. We can take issue about it all day long but that doesn't make it go away. Half the country, actually more, was freaking out about terrorism for a long time after 9/11 and have been running scared ever since, supporting a scorched earth policy on our constitution.

 

This pressure by the american sheeple is very real. Business has to deal with that pressure and they are effected by it, whether they agree with the war or not. Their cooperation is not an endorsement of the "war" - they may hate the freaking war but still feel compelled to cooperate through legal and regulatory threats coupled with the pressure felt by the general public.

 

It seems as though you refuse to accept that this pressure exists, as if our anti-war rhetoric makes it all go away. I can't go along with that. You're trying to punish telecomm companies for what you CAN'T punish the government for - even though it's the government that created this invalid, illegal exigency, not the telecomm biz.

 

I can't agree with punishing folks for benevolent mistakes in judgement or performance during a time of perceived crisis. I just can't. I can't sue or criminally charge a guy for giving cpr to a dying child and accidentally kills him in the process. I can't sue or criminally charge a person for moving a bleeding body from the street, exacerbating the injuries in the process. I can't agree with that concept at all.

[iNow]

And who gets to decide when it's benevolent and when it is not? Is not the law the same regardless of intent?

[ParanoiA]

And who gets to decide when it's benevolent and when it is not? Is not the law the same regardless of intent?

 

No the law is not the same regardless of intent. That's why we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and etc. However, will you wear that badge proudly while you send some guy to prison for making a bad decision while trying to rescue your child?

 

Intent matters. Context matters. Why wouldn't they? (And this is coming from the guy who's always criticizing "good intentions"...)

 

Now, the argument I've been waiting for just hasn't presented itself, although I think you're hinting around it. Why shouldn't they at least be investigated for malicious practice? And what's stopping them regardless of this legislation?

 

If they cooperated with federal authorities on good faith, I have no issue. However, if they've used this cooperative effort to mask malicious activity then they should go down. (And no, I don't believe that cooperating with the feds in this context is "malicious" - although on the part of the government it most CERTAINLY is.)

[Phi for All]

Why shouldn't they at least be investigated for malicious practice? And what's stopping them regardless of this legislation?

Well, granting immunity is what would stop it. And coincidentally, it wouldn't give any evidence of further wrong-doing by the government a decent chance of being discovered by investigation either.

[iNow]

Now, the argument I've been waiting for just hasn't presented itself, although I think you're hinting around it. Why shouldn't they at least be investigated for malicious practice? And what's stopping them regardless of this legislation?

I've been consistent arguing my position on it's merits, and I still hold to my points. Law was broken, company wrong, consequences of said law should be enacted.

 

While there are other supplemental points which could have been made about malice or additional investigation, my stance is that they broke a law and should be accountable to that law.

 

If the law is wrong, or the company acted appropriately despite the law, you change the law itself to account for such exceptions and grandfather the company in, you do not grant retroactive immunity.

 

 

 

If they cooperated with federal authorities on good faith, I have no issue. However, if they've used this cooperative effort to mask malicious activity then they should go down. (And no, I don't believe that cooperating with the feds in this context is "malicious" - although on the part of the government it most CERTAINLY is.)

 

If by malicious you mean "they earned something from those in power by cooperating," ...like a huge deal which "just happened" to go their way... or legislation of some sort was passed (as a result of their decision to supply information without a warrant)... legislation which further secured their monopoly and stronghold on the telecommunications industry... then, yes, we are in complete agreement.

 

...Except, I wouldn't call it malicious. The scenario described above I would instead term a self-serving, profit-seeking, immoral and illegal act which put bottom line above societal principles.

 

The idea that they benefited from providing information without warrant to the government strikes me as very likely, but I haven't brought it up because it is unproven and, more to the point, extraneous to the actual argument I've been presenting in this thread.

 

If the law is wrong, or the company acted appropriately despite the law, you change the law itself to account for such exceptions and grandfather the company in, you do not grant retroactive immunity. If the law was broken, and it is not going to be changed nor the company grandfathered in, consequences should be enacted. Retroactive immunity is an implicit admission of guilty, and is reminiscent of the Scooter Libby fuster cluck.

[ParanoiA]

If the law is wrong, or the company acted appropriately despite the law, you change the law itself to account for such exceptions and grandfather the company in, you do not grant retroactive immunity. If the law was broken, and it is not going to be changed nor the company grandfathered in, consequences should be enacted. Retroactive immunity is an implicit admission of guilty, and is reminiscent of the Scooter Libby fuster cluck.

 

That sounds reasonable to me. And it would really put the administration in a bind if that kind of legislation was passed first. Then, at least to me anyway, they would have zero reason to grant immunity or protect them in any way.

[bascule]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2229053420080224

 

Looks like Bush has pressured some telcos into resuming wiretapping.

 

Awesome!