If AT&T and other big telcos fed the National Security Agency a stream of data pilfered from switching rooms, it may come out in court. However, President Bush has promised to veto any bill that lacks immunity for the telcos.

For now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is happy the House of Representatives passed a “compromise surveillance bill” minus the immunity craved by the White House and the telecoms accused of engaging in wiretapping.

The issue of illegal wiretapping arose with the Hepting v AT&T class action lawsuit that started in January 2006. Public awareness of the spying increased when a whistleblower named Mark Klein provided testimony and evidence a switching room in San Francisco captured all Internet traffic passing through the AT&T facility.

Though the lawsuit seemed destined for dismissal under an appeal made to apply states’ secrets privileges, Hepting continued to move through the judicial process. With the Bush Administration winding down to a close, we have to wonder if a pardon from the White House might undo all of the casework done to date on Hepting.

"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."

The Washington Wire blog recently posted about the divide between Alexander and Tate with regards to their viewpoints on college and university compliance with the federal law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).

Alexander spoke in February and criticized the FCC’s support of an unfunded mandate by the FCC to force higher education to pay billions to upgrade their computer networks. Those upgrades would enable government and law enforcement to easily monitor calls or Internet traffic.

Tate, who once reported to Alexander, thinks the contentions by colleges and universities have been “highly speculative” where cost is concerned. Though she does not necessarily want to make higher education even more costly for students and families, she still endorsed a May 2007 deadline for compliance.

The FCC has been the subject of other actions over CALEA. And it did not come off well in a recent hearing, where a federal judge scoffed at the FCC attorney arguing in favor of CALEA. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards called attorney Jacob Lewis’ arguments “nonsense” and “gobbledygook” during a hearing.

At issue is a provision in the original CALEA terms as written in 1994. That provision as emphasized by a House committee report excluded email services, online services, or Internet service providers from CALEA, CNet said in a report. The FCC still clings to the viewpoint that “telecommunications provider” also means broadband and VoIP providers.

The debate also has to resolve what parts of a college network must be rendered wiretap-friendly. That could mean the “pipes” connecting a campus to the Internet, or the entire network infrastructure of the campus.

—
Tag:

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

Bookmark WebProNews –

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