No Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms...

[Nbadan]

...until they come clean with what they did.....

Specter: No Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms
By Paul Kiel - October 16, 2007, 5:50PM


As the ACLU worries that Senate Democrats in the intelligence committee will give retroactive immunity to telephone companies for collaborating with the administration's warrantless surveillance program, the two senior members of the judiciary committee say they won't entertain that without knowing what the telecoms did.

Here's Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) speaking earlier today on CNN - at link~

Said Specter:

I certainly would not give them immunity retroactively on programs that we don’t know what they are…. I think it’s unreasonable to ask us to give them immunity for things we don’t know what they did. If there was a need for it at the time, and if the telephone companies were good citizens and if they supplied information which was important, then I’d be prepared to look at it. But I’m not going to buy a pig in a poke, and commit to retroactive immunity when I don’t know what went on. They’ve kept that from us. That’s a big problem, Wolf.

Link (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004472.php)

and that's from a Republican....

[Nbadan]

First up, Verizon....


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Verizon Communications says it has provided federal, state and local law enforcement agencies tens of thousands of communication and business records relating to customers based on emergency requests without a court order or administrative subpoena.

In an October 12 letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a senior Verizon official says that from 2005 through this September there were 63,700 such requests, and of those, 720 came from federal authorities.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/16/verizon.records/index.html)

[Oh, Gee!!]

the dems and specter are gutless; the king will get what he wants

[Wild Cobra]

I thought this was settled long ago.

My understanding is that the records belong to the telephone companies, and no pretense of privacy is given. They can hand over records anytime they want. They can deny the requests if they want, unless issued a warrant.

Their choice.

Am I wrong?

Oh... remember... a warrant is a court order to do a specific action. Not permission. Reasonable requests do not require a warrant.

[spurster]

My understanding is that there are two types of information.

One is the "pen register", which is who talks to who. My understanding is that law enforcement can request these records without a warrant, but they are supposed to inform a judge when they do.

The other is wiretapping, which is the communication itself. Law enforcement is supposed to have probable cause and get a warrant beforehand.

Of course, the telephone companies don't record everyone's conversations, but as ISPs, any email has the communication part easily available. I don't think these companies can over this info to anyone and everyone.

[exstatic]

My understanding is that the records belong to the telephone companies, and no pretense of privacy is given. They can hand over records anytime they want. They can deny the requests if they want, unless issued a warrant.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong! But thank you for playing.

.USAToday story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm)


The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.

No wonder these fuckers want immunity

[Wild Cobra]

You should read the law:

TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 222 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html). There are adaquate exceptions. Please read it and not make me point them out.

[exstatic]

The exceptions are fairly specific, and not adequate to the purposes of the Bush administration in any way shape or form. I guess that's why you didn't post them. At first, I just thought it was because you are a lazy bastard. It's customary that if there isn't too much text, you include the pertinent parts in your message so that people aren't forced to follow the link, or figure out WTF you are talking about.

For everyone else: here's WC's weak argument...


(d) Exceptions
Nothing in this section prohibits a telecommunications carrier from using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer proprietary network information obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents—
(1) to initiate, render, bill, and collect for telecommunications services;
(2) to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services;
(3) to provide any inbound telemarketing, referral, or administrative services to the customer for the duration of the call, if such call was initiated by the customer and the customer approves of the use of such information to provide such service; and
(4) to provide call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in section 332 (d) of this title)—
(A) to a public safety answering point, emergency medical service provider or emergency dispatch provider, public safety, fire service, or law enforcement official, or hospital emergency or trauma care facility, in order to respond to the user’s call for emergency services;
(B) to inform the user’s legal guardian or members of the user’s immediate family of the user’s location in an emergency situation that involves the risk of death or serious physical harm; or
(C) to providers of information or database management services solely for purposes of assisting in the delivery of emergency services in response to an emergency.

[Wild Cobra]

The exceptions are fairly specific, and not adequate to the purposes of the Bush administration in any way shape or form. I guess that's why you didn't post them. At first, I just thought it was because you are a lazy bastard. It's customary that if there isn't too much text, you include the pertinent parts in your message so that people aren't forced to follow the link, or figure out WTF you are talking about.

For everyone else: here's WC's weak argument...
Actually no, that's not my argument. I shouldn't have used the word exceptions because that's a paragraph title. I read into it wrong for a different part, or I just don't see it now. (had several 6.8% beers) Anyway, there is this, which doesn't matter much:



(c) Confidentiality of customer proprietary network information
(1) Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer,

If you recall, signed contracts with carriers say that they can share information with law enforcement. The customers grant permission this way.

Now in the cases where that does not apply, where you can get a service without waving such rights, see this chapter:

TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 210 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000210----000-.html):


§ 210. Franks and passes; free service to governmental agencies in connection with national defense

(a) Nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall be construed to prohibit common carriers from issuing or giving franks to, or exchanging franks with each other for the use of, their officers, agents, employees, and their families, or, subject to such rules as the Commission may prescribe, from issuing, giving, or exchanging franks and passes to or with other common carriers not subject to the provisions of this chapter, for the use of their officers, agents, employees, and their families. The term “employees”, as used in this section, shall include furloughed, pensioned, and superannuated employees.
(b) Nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall be construed to prohibit common carriers from rendering to any agency of the Government free service in connection with the preparation for the national defense: Provided, That such free service may be rendered only in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe therefor.

As for the first little part of my argument, next time you sign anything with a bank, utility, or phone company, note the third party exceptions included.

[exstatic]

Actually no, that's not my argument. I shouldn't have used the word exceptions because that's a paragraph title. I read into it wrong for a different part, or I just don't see it now. (had several 6.8% beers) Anyway, there is this, which doesn't matter much:



If you recall, signed contracts with carriers say that they can share information with law enforcement. The customers grant permission this way.

Now in the cases where that does not apply, where you can get a service without waving such rights, see this chapter:

TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 210 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000210----000-.html):



As for the first little part of my argument, next time you sign anything with a bank, utility, or phone company, note the third party exceptions included.
You know what franking is, right? It's a freebie. They can provide free phone services to the govt for national defense purposes without the other telcos pitching a hissy. You still have yet to provide anything that contradicts the clear rules I posted regarding section 222. I noticed you referenced a different page this time. Are you trying the ol' "throw enough stuff against the wall and something might stick" approach?

Strike two.

[Nbadan]

The Senate Intelligence committee, led by a Demo, bent over and took it in the arse, then went home and declared victory against the evil W.H.....fucken weasels.....

By REUTERS
Published: October 18, 2007


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee approved a bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on terrorism suspects, but a Democratic presidential candidate said on Thursday he would try to block it.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 13-2 for the measure, which Chairman John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said strengthened national security and protected civil liberties. "It ensures that the unchecked wiretapping policies of the administration are a thing of the past," Rockefeller told reporters. The Senate committee's action came a day after a Democratic effort collapsed in the House of Representatives to pass an eavesdropping bill opposed by the White House....

The bill would allow wiretapping without a court order of suspected foreign terrorists, including when they call Americans, committee leaders said. It would grant lawsuit immunity, demanded by the White House, for telephone companies that participated in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks....

To safeguard civil liberties, the Senate bill would require a secret court to approve methods for targeting suspects and eavesdropping, more congressional oversight, and the removal of identifying information from intercepted calls involving innocent Americans. An amendment added during committee debate would require court approval to eavesdrop on the communications of an American overseas. The bill would expire after six years....

Sen. Chris Dodd said he intended to put a procedural "hold" on the bill, which could effectively block it from a Senate vote. The Connecticut Democrat, who does not serve on the Intelligence Committee, said on his presidential campaign Web site he opposed the telecom immunity provision....

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-eavesdropping.html)

Where's Hitlary?!? where's Obama? Edwards? (crickets)

[Wild Cobra]

You know what franking is, right? It's a freebie. They can provide free phone services to the govt for national defense purposes without the other telcos pitching a hissy. You still have yet to provide anything that contradicts the clear rules I posted regarding section 222. I noticed you referenced a different page this time. Are you trying the ol' "throw enough stuff against the wall and something might stick" approach?

Strike two.
Maybe I'm raeding things wrong then. I know there are legal methods for the highest levels of government to do their constitutionally allocated protections. I could get into some of the 'Executive" arguments, but I really don't know enough on the subject. Basically, laws passed for the country do not override the constitutionally granted executive rights and obligations. Maybe I'll spend more time on the subject when I have time to spare.

[exstatic]

Interesting question I saw on the net today: If everything that Bushco did was within legal parameters, covered by the powers in the constitution, and otherwise hunky dory, why do the telcos need immunity?

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting question I saw on the net today: If everything that Bushco did was within legal parameters, covered by the powers in the constitution, and otherwise hunky dory, why do the telcos need immunity?
Could be just to limit lawsuits that would waste time and money. Just because someone didn't so anything wrong, doesn't mean they cannot get sued. The process alone can waste millions or more.

[Nbadan]

Apparently, only the corporate-whores running the war of terra are above the law...


A telecommunications technician who says he witnessed the telecom giant AT&T secretly help the government with its eavesdropping program plans to tell all at a news conference tomorrow on Capitol Hill.

Mark Klein wants the Senate Judiciary committee to reject legislation that offers telecommuncations companies legal protection for participating in President Bush’s surveillance program without a court warrant. The Senate Intelligence Committee recently cleared such legislation. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will evaluate the measure.

Klein is a witness in a class-action lawsuit brought against AT&T by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group based in San Francisco. The foundation alleges that the telcom company aided the government in illegally spying on Americans outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“My job required me to enable the physical connections between AT&T customers’ internet communications and the National Security Agency’s illegal, wholesale copying machine for domestic emails, internet phone conversations, web surfing and all other Internet traffic,” Klein said in a statement.

...

Klein was responsible for connecting high-speed fiber optic cables to sophisticated equipment that intercepted communications from AT&T customers and then copied and routed every single one to a room run by the National Security Agency.

Statesmen (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/secrecy/entries/2007/11/06/att_whistleblower_say_no_to_te.html)

[some_user86]

“My job required me to enable the physical connections between AT&T customers’ internet communications and the National Security Agency’s illegal, wholesale copying machine for domestic emails, internet phone conversations, web surfing and all other Internet traffic,” Klein said in a statement.

...

Klein was responsible for connecting high-speed fiber optic cables to sophisticated equipment that intercepted communications from AT&T customers and then copied and routed every single one to a room run by the National Security Agency.


:tu

Bingo...

This is illegal under any definition. The wholesale copying and transferring of exact conversations, not just pen-register records, is illegal without a specific warrant.

This is the reason why the telecoms are asking for immunity.

And you want to know the scary part? This program was started in 2000, prior to Bush, prior to the terrorist attacks. What the fuck was it for? So much for the Dems being the saviors of the nation.

[Yonivore]

:tu

Bingo...

This is illegal under any definition. The wholesale copying and transferring of exact conversations, not just pen-register records, is illegal without a specific warrant.
I really think that's going to depend on what the courts determine is the service providers relationship to the users. If, according the courts, it is determined the contract between the telephone company and the end user allowed them to treat communication that traveled across their infrastructure as property, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the companies committed a crime.


This is the reason why the telecoms are asking for immunity.
Or, they could be trying to insulate themselves from nutters, like you, that are capable of willingly misconstruing existing law in order to wreak havoc on this country's attempt to prosecute the war on terror.


And you want to know the scary part? This program was started in 2000, prior to Bush, prior to the terrorist attacks. What the fuck was it for? So much for the Dems being the saviors of the nation.
And, before that, there was Echelon. OMG! I feel so violated.

Say, here's a solution. Don't use their service. No one has a right to telecommunications. If you don't want them monkeying with your communications that crosses their equipment, create your own company and don't let the government peek.

[Wild Cobra]

And now we want to believe someone who may be nothing more than a disgruntled employee?

What do you know of this guys integrity?

Come on guys. Have any incidents or facts with teeth?

[Nbadan]

Weak-kneed Democratic Senators in the pockets of Telecoms come through again...


UPDATE VI: Senate Democrats come through for George Bush yet again, as Sen. Feingold's amendment -- to remove telecom amnesty from the FISA bill -- fails by a vote of 11-8. Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse and Herb Kohl joined all of the Republicans (except one, I believe) to vote against Feingold's amendment (i.e., to vote in favor of telecom amnesty). That almost certainly means that the bill will be sent to the Senate floor with telecom amnesty in it (and will be filibustered by Sen. Dodd), although it will also have numerous provisions in it relating to surveillance which the White House has vowed will result in a veto (and for those enamored of legislative procedure: thus far, only Title I of the FISA bill -- relating to surveillance -- has been "reported out" by the Committee; Title II, dealing with amnesty, has not).

The House is still yet to vote on their far better bill, which does not include amnesty.

UPDATE VII: Here are the remarks today on the House FISA bill from one of the best members of Congress, Rep. Rush Holt. As I indicated, he was prepared to vote against even the House Democrats' RESTORE bill last month, and he explains in his remarks today why he is now satisfied with the current bill, which he spent the last several weeks working to improve.

On a separate note, I am receiving more indications that the House bill (which does not include amnesty) will pass. The question then will be how serious House Democrats are about defending their bill -- i.e., whether this is just all for show and they intend eventually to capitulate once they conference with the Senate and/or once Bush vetoes the FISA bill, or whether they will remain steadfast, stand the President down, and really refuse to pass a bill that grants the amnesty and vests the vast new warrantless surveillance powers that the White House is demanding.

For reasons that require no elaboration (see the Senate vote on Feingold's amendment), it's difficult to be confident in the outcome of all of this. Still, a vote by the House tonight to pass this bill will be a decent step.

Link (http://salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/15/amnesty_fisa/index.html)


"UPDATE VIII: The vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feingold's amendment to strip out amnesty was actually 12-7, not 11-8 (Leahy misspoke). All Republicans -- and Feinstein, Whitehouse and Kohl -- voted for amnesty. Now it will go to the Senate floor, where it is difficult to see Dodd's filibuster being sustained. They would almost certainly have 60 votes in the Senate to override Dodd and pass the bill with amnesty in it.

That means (assuming that the House votes in favor of its version tonight) that the FISA bill will be sent to a Conference Committee, where the House and the Senate will reconcile their various versions and agree on one bill. Real mischief can occur there, since that all takes place behind the scenes, with little public debate or media coverage. That process often results in an in-the-dark agreement that quickly gets sent to both houses for a fast vote before they recess and scamper out of town. Obviously, vigilance will be required."

Salon (http://salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/15/amnesty_fisa/index.html)

[Nbadan]

The Fate of a Free Presidential Election in 2008 May Now Depend on the Senate
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/19/2007 - 10:24am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Elliot D. Cohen


In 1972, Nixon's burglars, all members of the Committee to Reelect the President, had to risk breaking into Democratic National Headquarters to try to gain an unfair election advantage for the GOP over its Democratic opponent. Now, with Total Information Awareness in place, the Bush White House may not even have to flip a switch to have the Dems' private e-mails and phone conversations delivered to its doorstep. Unfortunately, this may only be the tip of the iceberg for the fate of free elections in America if Congress decides to grant legal status and retroactive immunity to this massive surveillance and data mining operation conducted by giant telecoms on behalf of the President.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to decide on provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 that would grant telecom corporations ironclad retroactive immunity against civil suits and criminal prosecution for helping the Bush Administration engage in systematic, widespread, warrantless surveillance and data mining of the contents of both domestic and foreign phone and e-mail messages of Americans since at least 2001, and possibly earlier. Instead, the Committee sent two versions of the bill to the full Senate, one of which granted retroactive immunity to telecoms and the other of which did not. Now, the fate of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure -- including its implications for the future of free and fair elections in America -- rests in the hands of the Senate.

In The New York Times article on November 14, 2002, William Safire warned about the dangers of the Total Information Awareness project:

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ''a virtual, centralized grand database.'' To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a ''Total Information Awareness'' about every U.S. citizen."

In the same article, Safire also maintained that the project had been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.

But in 2003, the dangers of which Safire warned were addressed by Congress, or at least so it seemed. Amid outcry from civil liberties advocates, this TIA project, which then operated under the Department of Defense (DOD), was defunded. However, under a classified addendum to the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2004, lawmakers secretly continued funding of TIA component technologies. It did so under two conditions: first, these technologies were transferred to a government agency other than the DOD; and second, they were used only for foreign surveillance and not for spying on American citizens.

According to a 2006 article published in the National Journal, the program was subsequently transferred to an arm of the National Security Agency (NSA). This technology acquired by NSA included technology for integrating the various components of the program as well as artificial intelligence for searching and analyzing massive amounts of electronic message content, according to predefined search criteria. Since the TIA project's R&D also included translating voice messages such as telephone conversations in diverse spoken languages into searchable text messages, it is reasonable to believe that the NSA also had access to such language translation software.

It is therefore not likely a coincidence that the same type of technology as just described now appears to be deployed by the NSA in a massive surveillance and data mining operation being conducted with the assistance of telecom corporations, notably AT&T. Currently pending against AT&T are at least 30 civil suits, including a class action suit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) alleging that AT&T helped the NSA to illegally spy on the phone and e-mail messages of millions of Americas by copying and routing all incoming electronic messages to secret rooms hidden deep inside major AT&T hubs within the United States. According to EFF, these secret rooms, which require NSA clearance, contain "powerful computer equipment connected to separate networks." "This equipment," it claims, "is designed to analyze communications at high speed, and can be programmed to review and select out the contents and traffic patterns of communications according to user-defined rules."

Apparently, the TIA project, presumed to have been scrapped in 2003, is not now just in the research and development stage; it has actually been deployed. Seen in this light, the recent merger between AT&T and Southern Bell takes on new significance. Whatever else it portends, the granting of this merger by a Bush top-heavy Federal Communication Commission can also be seen as a logistical move to expand the sweep of TIA. This also explains why AT&T was willing to cooperate with the White House in engaging in surveillance activities, the legality of which its army of attorneys could have well anticipated would eventually be challenged -- and could easily expose the corporation to costly lawsuits. Like other corporate decisions, AT&T's decision had to be based on a careful cost-benefit analysis with the prospect of lucrative mergers such as the one with Southern Bell weighing in on the positive side. At the same time, this also explains why the Bush Administration now seeks to shield AT&T from civil and criminal liability for its assistance. To do otherwise would not only be to expose its own unlawful, clandestine surveillance of American citizens -- including the lies it has disseminated to the public about such activity having been restricted to foreign surveillance; but also it would place in peril the infrastructure of a massive surveillance and data mining system that has the potential to intercept, store, search, and analyze the flow of information coming into and out of the United States.

With the present deployment of TIA, it may be pointless to speak of democracy. Free elections are no longer possible when the regime in power has the ability to control the transfer of information. In fact, in a March 7, 2007 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has expressed concerns about relying on telecommunication services for transmitting electronic votes from individual polling stations to a central tabulation center. It states,

"Computer security experts have raised concerns... about voting system standards that are not sufficient to address the weaknesses inherent in telecommunications and networking services. ...Regarding telecommunications and networking services, selected computer security experts believe that relying on any use of telecommunications or networking services, including wireless communications, exposes electronic voting systems to risks that make it difficult to adequately ensure their security and reliability -- even with safeguards such as encryption and digital signatures in place."

While the issues surrounding electronic voting are highly technical and controversial, it is beyond question that a telecom such as AT&T that strains the electronic flow of information, according to undisclosed search criteria, could also in principle act as a so-called "man in the middle" by intercepting, analyzing, and changing votes before they reach their final destination.

If telecoms become immune from investigation, then such voter fraud could be carried out en mass without the possibility of judicial review. There would be nothing more destructive to the existence of democracy than the inability for transfer of power to occur by a free election, according to the rule of law and a constitutional procedure.

The fate of democracy may therefore now be in the hands of Congress. If retroactive legal immunity is given to telecom corporations, this will not only mark the beginning of the end for the Fourth Amendment but also for democracy in America. Sadly, those Americans who quip that, in the interest of defending freedom and democracy, they do not care if their phone and e-mail messages are examined by government, do not grasp the self-defeating nature of what they are saying. In giving up their Fourth Amendment rights, they will have also given up their democracy.

Presently, the American Civil Liberties Organization (ACLU), in addition to a few other advocacy organizations, is working against granting telecoms retroactive legal immunity. Americans who want to preserve democracy have a moral obligation to send a letter to their Senators telling them to block passage of this measure.


A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.<www.elliotdcohen.com > is a media ethicist and critic. His most recent book is "The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship." He is a first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.