So what does this mean to you? Obviously this is being done to catch terrorists and protect the American people… a noble pursuit without a doubt. Unfortunately, it also cuts off 3 vital methods of once private communication that journalists were able to utilize when researching stories using foreign contacts. After all, there is no way a journalist can feel comfortable connecting with a foreign source if they know the source is unprotected by journalistic confidentiality. As a result, a short time after the bill was passed the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today challenging the constitutionality of the bill. More information on that is available in the Wired posting that alerted me to this travesty of privacy.

This all makes me wonder how much more biased the news will become when responsible journalists can’t continue to police the government because their sources are too afraid to come forward. I don’t know about you but I have always felt that uncensored journalism was one of the linchpins of free speech that made democratic societies possible.

Oh There’s More! What About You and I?
Journalistic rights are one thing but what about my fellow Canadians that use Gmail or for that matter anyone outside of the USA using Gmail? Since we are foreign users of Gmail are all of our emails subject to inspection? I realize this whole line of questioning begs the question… "why… what do you have to hide?" Well I am sorry but that just doesn’t hold water, we all have a right to privacy and this latest erosion of civil rights in America sets an Orwellian precedent and has international, long-term repercussions that just plain frighten me.

What do you have to say about this latest bill? I realize this is hot topic for many… in fact I would usually avoid the subject on our corporate blog but I feel it is just too important to shake off. I would love to hear views from our American and international readers on this.

Thanks, now I hand the pulpit to you.

Comments

Library of Congress

And at least Republicans, who we’ve known to have a veritable cornucopia of cojones – large, brass, clanging ones – are predictably pitching fits and playing that good old reliable and, like their coveted surveillance, unwarranted fear card.

In the face of all that brass, it’s not clear yet, just how long the Democrats’ newfound courage will hold out—nobody likes to be against "protecting" America or viewed as soft on security in the most important election year for the Democratic party since Bubba came around and charmed the pants, literally, off everybody.

These golden power-seizing opportunities only come around once every so often, the last great icon being Bubba, and the last one before that being, well, Kennedy. Disclaimer: I’m neither Democrat nor Republican nor completely Libertarian, though that’s closest. I happen to be more Democrat than Republican this election season though, given the choices and recent histories.

I’m against retroactive immunity for a number of reasons, which I will get into in a bit. But first I want to say that my opinion on the matter, or the opinion of the opposition, should be moot at this juncture. What really matters right now is that the American people get their day in court, not who’s wrong or right on surveillance. The government does not have the right nor the authority to take away the people’s entitlement of bringing companies or the government itself before the courts to decide whether the accused is actually guilty.

The same goes for any other matter. If a man is charged with a crime, the government cannot deny either the man’s right to defend himself, nor the public’s right to investigate, nor the court’s authority to decide whether or not there was any wrongdoing. Retroactive immunity would deny the people their day in court, and that should not be allowed to happen. If it’s true that the telecoms and government were innocent of wrongdoing, let them present that case in court, and let it be decided there.

Otherwise, there is no system of checks and balances, no system of justice or accountability. The administration will be granted unprecedented authority to whatever it wants without having to answer to anybody or tell anybody what it is doing, civil liberties and the Constitution be damned. That’s pretty un-American in my book, borderline treasonous, and right out of the totalitarian playbooks our system of government was set up against.

But Bush, his administration, and many Republicans in Congress would deny any type of accountability, even to the extent that the people are denied what’s fair to them, and there is a looming fear that the Democrats in this sensitive election season, will do a bit of grandstanding before ultimately backing down and giving into the regime.

That could happen next week, once Congress has more time to address it—or now that there’s a good six weeks before the next major primary.

That the people should be given their day in court is my main point, and I’ve made it. I’ll now turn to my argument against immunity so that any reader who won’t be able to stand it anymore can go ahead and click out.

Even if I plan to keep rather brief.

The President doesn’t think the American people deserve to ask questions in court, but instead thinks they should thank the telecom industry for doing their patriotic duty* and just be on their way, you know, putting that $300 back into the economy by engaging in the same fiscal irresponsibility that got us into the economic crisis we’re in already, which somehow warrants a pittance of a refund, in some kind of weird circular logic.

Basically, after seven straight years of eroding public trust (what’s his approval rating again?) by at best being wrong and at worst lying (which one is up to you), the administration is asking for more trust, and asking for us also to trust companies who’ve demonstrated the same or less justification for trust than the government has.

These very institutions we’re being asked to trust have not earned that trust. The FBI just admitted that it improperly accessed Americans’ telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006. This was just on the heels of the administration’s argument that they were only using warrantless wiretapping to intercept foreign communications and not information on Americans.

So: FBI not worthy of our trust.

Who gave them the information? Well, Verizon admitted a while back that it turned over customer (read: American citizen) information to the government voluntarily, without any fight whatsoever. AT&T has a special room set up just for the NSA to intercept traffic. This all happened despite their initial right to refuse such requests, and the government’s obligation to seek proper court orders under the law. And, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wants it so that all Internet traffic going across networks is monitored, which would include American citizens, Fourth Amendment violation or not, even if no FISA request has been turned down in 30 years.

So: Verizon, AT&T, National Intelligence agencies not worthy of our trust.

Some supporters have argued that allowing the Protect America Act to sunset means the intelligence communities cannot currently collect data. That’s patently untrue. They are able to collect data for another six months, so there’s no urgency now.

So: You conclude what that means for the trustworthiness of supporters of immunity for yourself.

And really? The Bush Administration and blind Congressional followers just expect us to give the whole lot of them a free pass to do whatever they want without any type of supervision or system of accountability, legal or not? How un-American is that? Worse, I fear the Democrats won’t muster up enough courage to stand up to it, and that doubtful Republicans won’t risk crossing party lines, especially during an election year, when fear is the most tried-and-true path to power.

*"Patriotic duty" is a nice, loaded phrase that is up for interpretation, and more commonly used to manipulate people by a gambit of emotions like guilt, shame, obligation, and pride. It could easily be argued that "patriotic duty" in America is standing up to abuses of power. If so, the telecommunications companies clearly shirked that duty.  

"For now," though, seems to be the phrase on which everything teeters. Amendments could be added on the Senate floor, and both could be vetoed by the President, who has promised to do so.

It hasn’t been all party-line, like one might imagine. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) voted in favor of immunity, while Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued the telephone companies "deserve our thanks" for spying on us and breaking the law.

Senator Alen Specter (R-PA) offered a "compromise" at one point that would substitute the government for the telecoms in court.  But these actions to rob the American people of their ability to hold companies and their government accountable are rather moot.

For now.

Whether or not one agrees the wiretapping and intercepting of Internet traffic was justified (or even legal), the people should not be robbed of their right to sue and have this settled in court.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization heading up one of a dozen class action suits waiting to heard, cheered the representatives that held up the rights of the public. 

"We are pleased that the House and a majority of the Judiciary Committee’s members have signaled that they want Americans to have their day in court," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

"The fight isn’t over yet, however. We look forward to working with Senators Leahy, Specter, and Feingold and other lawmakers in both chambers of Congress to make sure that the bill eventually sent to the president allows the people’s lawsuits to go forward."

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President’s assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have. 
 
It’s about delivering results — and as I’ve said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution.  But we shouldn’t have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country’s most treasured document.  That’s why I am stopping this bill today.

 Senator Dodd then invited comments about the move below his post, indicating that the two-way New Media is taking hold even in politics.

This isn’t an endorsement (of candidates), but it is comforting to know there are Congressmen willing to stand up to Constitutional violations, and that the public has a new way to communicate with politicians directly. 

Qwest Communications has not enjoyed the best publicity, with numerous websites hosting complaints, many at length, about the company’s shortcomings. Bad feelings and bad words have been the norm.

Yet today, news of a website called Thank You Qwest began making the rounds. And blogs have been displaying a badge praising Qwest for being NSA-free.

It started when the National Security Agency began making the rounds of telecoms, USA Today reported. While AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth readily capitulated to requests for millions of phone records, Qwest had problems with the request.

Nacchio saw the request as being potentially illegal. Also, should Qwest have been found in violation of the law, immense financial penalties could have been assessed to it. Qwest wanted to see legal backing for the NSA request, which was not accompanied by a court order.

NSA’s response to that, according to the article, proves very interesting:

Nacchio left Qwest in 2002. His successor, Richard Noteabart, reportedly ended talks with the NSA in 2004. However, a spokesperson for Qwest said in the report, “We can’t talk about this. It’s a classified situation.”

—
Tag:

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | Furl It

Bookmark WebProNews –

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.