« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Admin Officials: Protections for Telecoms for Surveillance A Matter of 'Fairness'
Wainstein and McConnell are holding firm that no civil liberties are adversely impacted by the Protect America Act. In that context, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) asked a good question: Why, then, seek to codify in the law a prohibition on suing telecommunications companies from complying with government surveillance?
Wainstein's answer? It's "just not right" not to provide that immunity for a company cooperating with the FBI or NSA on surveillance. "It isn't right if a company alleged to assist the country in a time of peril, turns around and faces costly litigation and maybe crushing liability," he said. He didn't say what laws the telecoms might be breaking currently. Later, McConnell told Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) that he would specify those laws to the panel in closed session.
Wainstein added that it might be a problem for a company just to be named in association with the surveillance program, due to public fear and skepticism of it. Yet last month in an interview with the El Paso Times, McConnell said AT&T and Verizon were cooperating with the government on surveillance.
Comments (10)
GeorgeBush43 wrote on September 18, 2007 2:27 PM:Wainsten is exactly right that it's just not right to do right by our friends who stand up for us so we can stand against terrorists. They haven't broken any laws, so it can't do any harm to indemify them against frivolous lawsuits brought by terrorist sympathizers that could only serve as a distraction to them from getting us the data we need.
Let me just add that I am not saying that any telecom companies DID anything.
--GWB
regular lurker wrote on September 18, 2007 3:11 PM:I wonder if our newest t man, GWB, has figured out yet he was spied upon by his own government. He's now a suspected terrorist all because he called an 800 number for tech support that happened to be located in Pakistan.
Nah. He's clearly not bright enough to figure out he's spent the last 6 years sitting in the dark.
Buck Batard wrote on September 18, 2007 3:16 PM:...and everyone wonders why Apple had to lower the price of the iphone by $200 so fast. People remember.
I'd buy one, but not as long as I have to do business with AT&T.
conniptionfit wrote on September 18, 2007 3:39 PM:One has to wonder what exactly this is a smoke screen for. They're trying to say that the telecom companies are innocent of assisting the government outside of the law, while claiming that the telecoms need to be protected from the legal consequences of acting outside the law. ??? How 'bout we turn their own patriot act logic on them and ask: If they haven't done anything wrong, why do they need to be protected? The main danger, as I see it is not that only the Telecoms will be indemnified, but that this new law would be used to demand cooperation from any corporation in blatant violation of the constitution and privacy laws on the shaky legal basis of "Trust us, we're the federal government, would we lie to you?" Why don't folks remember that the FISA law is there to protect not just individuals, but the corporations and the government itself?!
Mary wrote on September 18, 2007 5:15 PM:How do you get to "maybe crushing liability" without a) violation of law, and b) LOTS AND LOTS of violation of law.
It takes a lot of liability to crush ATT. And where no damages are proven, the statutory recovery isn't all that much - so how MANY people have recovery rights against ATT?
Bush said he was just listening to al-Qaeda. Please don't tell me there are so many al-Qaeda members in the US that 500/statutory penalties per member will crush ATT?
Golly.
Did anyone ask Wainstein right out if he was there in a capacity as a Dept of Justice employee who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and whose duty is secondarily to "we the people" and if so, how he reconciles that with advocating that a company that may have broken the law to the point where it would have "crushing" statutory liability, should just mosey off scott free from civil recovery AND from criminal recovery?
Next, I'm guessing we'll get to hear how it would be "maybe crushing" for Chiquita execs who knowingly did business with terrorists to actually be individually liable for their direct and knowing decisions to ...
Oh.
Nevermind.
The corporate and political ownership of DOJ really is beyond the point of undoing, isn't it?
rockyroad wrote on September 18, 2007 5:35 PM:What's wrong with the government co-opting tellecom companies in their spying activities?
Oh, so many things. Take Blackwater, the government hires private contactors at exhorbitant rates to do the work of government. The beauty of Blackwater to the administration is that they are answerable to no-one . . . can't be tried in US courts, can't be tried in Iraqi courts without US authorization . . . they are completely unaccountable.
For telecoms to fall within the umbrella of "Executive Secret" completely debunks the right to privacy, the Fifth Amendment that our forefathers felt was so fundamental . . . with the compounding nature of technology, what is telecom today is every aspect of your life tomorrow. . . The books you buy or check out, the groceries you buy, the car you buy or have repaired, your travel plans, all go out over telecom lines . . . the only thing you might think that the government can't monitor through your phone line is your private conversations in your home or office . . . think again . . . it can be done.
This administration has breached every grant of trust that they have been given . . . they have expanded their reach at every opportunity . . . privacy is an American value with which they cannot be trusted.
rockyroad wrote on September 18, 2007 5:48 PM:Frankly, businesses should be particularly weary of this evesdropping authority. Apparently, the US has used its evesdropping capability (carnivour) in Europe to undermine the bidding process, providing Boeing with contacts that Air France believed were confirmed.
Granted, dub'ya and co likes no-bid contracts, if you're a democrat with a construction or company seeking government contracts, it should be a bit worrysome that all of your internal conversations can be collected. You're collecting bids in order to compile your bid and the numbers keep changing for no apparent reason. Unless you fork over big GOP contributions, you probably won't win that contract.
We are a democracy . . . a supposed efficient market system . . . this does not bode well.
judyinnm wrote on September 18, 2007 6:43 PM:"in a time of peril" - the excuse for every powergrab, everytime. We have always lived in a "time of peril", and always will; doesn't mean we should give up our rights and privacy, to be "safe".
totallynext wrote on September 18, 2007 8:39 PM:U'm - just say no.... Just like Qwest
Uncle $cam wrote on September 19, 2007 5:46 AM:Uh, Qwest is not the friend you think it is...