GNG News Guy
05-23-2008, 09:02 AM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/14/2314.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/McCain-Telecoms-Need-to-Apologize-For-Wiretap-Immunity-94665)
I've talked at length about how Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have spent billions lobbying Uncle Sam for retro-active legal immunity for their decisions to hand over user data wholesale to the NSA without a warrant (or judicial oversight). Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/telecom-amnesty.html) reports that Presidential candidate John McCain, who already voted for immunity, would not support immunity for the telecoms "unless there were revealing Congressional hearings" and "heartfelt repentance."
I was under the impression that corporations weren't moral or immoral but amoral, and therefore not specifically capable of emotions like regret. I'm not too sure that Verizon and AT&T lobbyists would have a very rough time faking regret in order to obliterate billions in lawsuits. Likely Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama remains opposed to telecom immunity. Of course none of this matters if immunity is granted sometime during Bush's final term. The latest Republican effort to get what they want is explored by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD90R3PT00):A months-long logjam over a new government surveillance bill may be coming to an end, with Republicans offering a compromise that would let people who think they were illegally spied on by the government have their day in court albeit a secret one.
However the ACLU says the new proposal isn't any better than the original bill passed by the Senate that delivers immunity, and essentially delivers telecoms the same gift: an easy way of killing these lawsuits.The FISA court is still not empowered to determine whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal_ just whether the attorney general sent a letter to the companies requesting assistance. The compromise "just says that the existence of an order whether legal or not is enough to dismiss the cases," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant with the ACLU.
And on and on it goes....
I've talked at length about how Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have spent billions lobbying Uncle Sam for retro-active legal immunity for their decisions to hand over user data wholesale to the NSA without a warrant (or judicial oversight). Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/telecom-amnesty.html) reports that Presidential candidate John McCain, who already voted for immunity, would not support immunity for the telecoms "unless there were revealing Congressional hearings" and "heartfelt repentance."
I was under the impression that corporations weren't moral or immoral but amoral, and therefore not specifically capable of emotions like regret. I'm not too sure that Verizon and AT&T lobbyists would have a very rough time faking regret in order to obliterate billions in lawsuits. Likely Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama remains opposed to telecom immunity. Of course none of this matters if immunity is granted sometime during Bush's final term. The latest Republican effort to get what they want is explored by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD90R3PT00):A months-long logjam over a new government surveillance bill may be coming to an end, with Republicans offering a compromise that would let people who think they were illegally spied on by the government have their day in court albeit a secret one.
However the ACLU says the new proposal isn't any better than the original bill passed by the Senate that delivers immunity, and essentially delivers telecoms the same gift: an easy way of killing these lawsuits.The FISA court is still not empowered to determine whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal_ just whether the attorney general sent a letter to the companies requesting assistance. The compromise "just says that the existence of an order whether legal or not is enough to dismiss the cases," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant with the ACLU.
And on and on it goes....