Could Someone Explain To Me Why I Should Be Pissed About Telecom Immunity

[SoFlaJet]

how does it affect my life? Serious question here...

[burythehatchet]

1. hoo boy ...

[ThomWV]

2. Depends on which profile you fit into

You might be OK, hard to say.

[Solly Mack]

3. Who's popping the popcorn?

I've got coffee.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. Solly, here ya go

:popcorn: ---------> Solly

[Solly Mack]

13. Thank you, OmmmSweetOmmm!!

I trust the popcorn doesn't affect anyone personally.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. ......

:rofl:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. LOL.

MMMM, :donut: and :popcorn: on Friday morning. SFJ comes out swingin'. :rofl:

[Solly Mack]

23. hehe

[GoneOffShore]

42. Coffee ? We don't need no stinking coffee!!!

We need :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[bryant69]

4. Well do you think the President should be above the law?

Or should have the power to place corporations above the law?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[boobooday]

5. Perhaps because it represents a behind the scenes collusion

between corporations and the government to violate your civil rights?

Because it sets Telecomm companies above the law? Do you think they should obey the laws?

Or are you waiting for law-breaking corporations to do something to you personally? Is that the question?

[SoFlaJet]

16. that's kinda what I'm asking booboo

I mean I have long suspected that by being here at DU since 2001 and Buzzflash and other places like that since right after the 2000 coup that my name has to be on some list somewhere-I'm wondering HOW I've been invaded

[boobooday]

21. Well, I think it is safe to say that all your emails have been filtered

Without being too paranoid, as the reports are that they are filtering ALL traffic.

A big part of the problem is that we don't know how much we have been invaded, because they are secretive, and want to protect the Telecomm companies who have most likely broken the law, or they wouldn't be seeking immunity.

So I think it is safe to say they have violated the civil liberties of a substantial number of people, which likely includes people like you and me.

[hootinholler]

40. If by filter you mean

Slurping all traffic up into a big database for future analysis, then ok, I'll accept filter.

Think about it, all traffic stored for posterity and future fishing expeditions by whichever three letter agency you attract the attention of.

They did this starting in Feb '01!

-Hoot

[boobooday]

49. I was being cautious, too lazy to verify the extent of it

I'm sure you are right.

[hootinholler]

52. You can't verify the extent of it....

That *is* speculation on my part until it is publicly confirmed. That being said, I am highly confident of my speculation in this case because it's based on work I did in 2002 and 2003.

-Hoot

[notadmblnd]

30. your e-mails have beecn scanned.

your phone conversations have been run their the process too. Use a bank card? All your financial transactions have been tracked. You use that bank card to put gas in your car? Then they know where you go and what you buy.

There's probably not one day of your life of the past 7 years, that the government can't tell you what you bought, who you spoke to and where you went. And it was all done illegally and with the help of the telecomms and other corporate entities. Now you may not have a problem with that, but many do.

[SoFlaJet]

39. it's not that I don't have a problem with it

it's only that I was trying to understand the issue-you used to be able to ask questions like this here...I hope someday we can again-you know act like democrats and help each other out like we used to....it's a damn shame what a bunch of operatives have done to this place atop their high horses

[notadmblnd]

44. Oh I know. this place has changed quite a bit over the past few years

and with the primaries, it's only gotten more people angry and on edge. I've done myself a favor and stayed out of GDP as I can see no difference in the two candidates. IMO both will continue to do the corporate greed monsters bidding. So don't be too hard on those that are angry, the little dictator has made most of our lives miserable the past 7 years and their anger is justified. It's just unfortunate that it gets misdirected as times.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

46. Well, on my phone I have discussed personal health issues with

my physician that I don't really think is Chucklenuts' and The Cabal's business. I have talked financial issues, family matters, and politics. I have had serious discussions with my attorney over the phone, I have talked to prospective employers. Somehow, despite the strict HIPPA protections, I was told by a government contractor that I wouldn't be considered for a job because of financial concerns over the last six months (due to illness) AND they knew I had had breast cancer although I assure you they didn't hear it from me.

I know with everything computerized that nothing is sacred or private but I would like to think that I can call and talk to my kids, family and friends without my phone company capturing, recording and sending Chucklenuts a transcript for giggles and kicks. If the phone companies and Chucklenuts can violate the laws and my right to privacy and get a free pass out of jail so easily do you think they would let me go rob a bank and then get forgiveness since it is vital to my personal security?

Once you have a set of laws for different classes of people you no longer have a democracy.

[SpiralHawk]

31. ...and it is one more highly significant step in curtailing our Constitutional rights

So many steps have already been taken by the republicon homeland borg. This is a Big One. And expect more.

Totalitarianism is not just a word anymore. It is republicon reality, and they are forcing it down America's throat one step at a time.

That's one reason you should care. It's one reason the Freepers should care, too, if in fact they were real conservatives (which they are not, and hardly any remaing republicons are). But the Freepers are swallowing the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. As usual.

[ixion]

6. It's about upholding the constitution, which affects us all

The government and the telcos violated the constitution, and they should be held accountable. Whether if affects you personally is really irrelevant.

[ThomWV]

7. Because you have a right to privacy and the Government has no right to invade it.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. It appears that illegal and willful violations of civil liberties by corporations is

a concern which you won't let bother your beautiful mind. There's nothing I can offer to a mind such as that.

:shrug:

[SoFlaJet]

18. onh come on BHP in the old days here at DU

these are the kinds of questions we could all ask each other without the snark-let's pretend we're all dems for a second I'm trying to understand something here-I KNOW I'm an idiot already...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

20. That fact that you don't understand the issue speaks volumes.

That's all.

[SoFlaJet]

27. yea

it proves I'm no know-it-all and never claimed to be one-it's called having a little humility and clearly being humble is a trait we do not seem to share-speaks volumes too about you I'd say

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

29. You come on all aggressive saying "Why am I SUPPOSED to be pissed" demanding an

explanation that has been provided in great detail and length on this board for YEARS and then say you're humble?

:rofl: no more chum for you. :rofl:

[shraby]

10. That would be an expost facto law and that's

against the constitution (illegal). If you're all right with them making laws that are against the constitution to cover up actions that were against the constitution, you should maybe move to China or sumpin.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. No

it's not considered an ex-post facto law. Eliminating or reducing penalties is OK, constitutionally,

[shraby]

53. They can't make a law retroactive.

[rateyes]

12. It's a cover up of high crimes committed by Bush/Cheney...

not to mention an infringement on our Constitutional rights. Read Orwell's 1984.

[Botany]

14. Because it lets bush & Cheney "walk away" from their crimes.

Do you have the slightest doubt that Rove did not use the
NSA to spy on Kerry in 2004?

Immunity for the telecom companies is just the cover story.

The spying started in Feb. of 2001 long before 9/11 so the
b.s. that it was done to stop terrorism is just a lie it was part
and parcel of the illegal take over our country that is bush/Cheney.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

25. Yup. The pre-9/11 tapping is the key point for me.

I'm a little less upset with the post-9/11. There's no good excuse for it but the fact is an awful lot of people were spooked out of their better senses for a while.

[freedom fighter jh]

15. It could wipe out your right against unlawful searches and protect the Bush admin from justice

1. If the telecoms can't be sued for snooping on you illegally, then there is nothing to stop them from doing it, at the government's behest. Then there would be no meaning to the Constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure, at least as far as electronic info goes.

2. There is suspicion that the Bush admin has done a lot more wiretapping than they've let on to, and that they started before 9/11/01. The only way for the facts about this to come out is through lawsuits of the telecoms. Immunity means no lawsuits, which means no information to the public on just how much spying on citizens the Bush admin authorized, and when.

[guitar man]

19. because when we allow

mega corporations to run rough shod over our civil liberties and then strong-arm the govt into making them immune when they do, putting their mega-rich execs on a pedestal, untouchable for any crimes they might have committed, we're screwed. It's a bad precedent to set, not holding them accountable. It's the descent into fascism, pure and simple.

[The Stranger]

22. No, I don't think I would be able to explain it to you. Next time, read the boards before posting.

Figure it out for yourself.

[SoFlaJet]

24. thanks to all

who took the time to help edumacate me this morning

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

26. Why, you and your beautiful mind are quite welcome.

:hi:

[SoFlaJet]

28. thanks for waving goodbye

you just made my ignore list-who needs people like you anyway

[SoFlaJet]

32. I'm really glad

That I'm not a miserable person in my life like some here. I guess I know why and I think it shows what kind of supporters a candidate attracts-kind of like some misshapen fun-house mirror

[durablend]

37. Yes, you're right...

Why can't we just all be happyhappyjoyjoy while we're getting our rights taken away little by little (while many around just say "what's the problem? everything's just fine!")

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

54. Ignorance is bliss

[Orsino]

33. That would depend upon what you don't want them to do to you.

Is there any way that they could invade your privacy to which you'd object? That couldn't be covered by this immunity?

[Fredda Weinberg]

34. Reading between the proverbial lines, I'm not. The telcoms were

apparently lied to and the questionably legitimate regime is to blame. Thing is, this won't get anywhere in the civil courts ... it would be like Ellberg trying to open Watergate. This is for the history books and the hearings were held - behind closed doors.

[spanone]

35. how's this....immunity is for criminals...no crime, no immunity needed eom

[Sabriel]

36. Would you like your insurance and health care providers to have immunity?

So they could turn over records at the first request without fear of a lawsuit or prosecution? Or how about your doctor or psychiatrist?

Essentially, it eliminates the judicial system from your ability to redress wrongs done to you under the law.

I think that's a pretty big deal.

[rocktivity]

38. The US government cannot monitor your telecommunications without a WARRANT

because a warrant is proof of probable cause. Bush does not have to right to spy on anyone he wants unless he can give a legal reason why they should be spied on. It's really that simple. Bush is trying to protect the telecom companies because he's trying to protect himself.

:headbang:
rocknation

[TransitJohn]

41. Because it will prevent

the crimes of this administration in spying on Americans without warrants from ever being investigated/prosecuted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. You have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search.

Wiretapping absent probable cause constitutes an unreasonable search. Wiretapping everyone hoping to catch someone doing something wrong, ratchets up the criminality another notch.

The administration's doing it anyhow, and they've hired the big telecom companies to do it for them. The telecom companies knew it was illegal, but didn't want to rock the boat or reject the check. So congress is giving them immunity from prosecution for the crimes that the administration hired them to do.

Since you appear to consider the fourth amendment to the constitution somewhat academic, how about this;
Prior restraint on speech constitutes a violation of your right to free speech. Creating and distributing a virus program which deletes the hard drives of any computer holding a file with the words "Bush" within four words of "fascism" ratchets up the criminality another notch.

The administration's doing it anyhow, and they've hired Microsoft to do it for them. Bill knew it was illegal but didn't want to lose the US govt's business, so congress is immunizing them from prosecution for the crimes that the administration hired them to do.

Or, at least they would have, if the administration hadn't also added the text of the constitution to the virus' list of forbidden terms.

Totalitarianism isn't a slippery slope. It's a cliff. On the terra firma side of the cliff leaders are constrained by law, the next step - not. We're already several steps past the edge doing the Wiley Coyote thing.

[LSK]

47. discovery in the lawsuits will reveal the wiretapping of the Kerry Campaign

House Dems, Cindy Sheehan, Quakers in Florida and everything else that has nothing to do with National Security and everything to do with spying on Political Enemies aka Watergate on Steroids.

[fascisthunter]

48. Well, in that case

or maybe no need

[dysfunctional press]

50. because it's unconstitutional to pass a law after the fact.

you can't make an illegal act legal retroactively, any more than you can retroactively make a legal act illegal- the constitution forbids laws of "ex-post facto"- after the fact.

[L. Coyote]

51. Not really. n/t