Listening In

If the government has a legal warrant than lawsuit or no lawsuit they have to obey the law. What is so hard to understand about this issue?

If we Degrade the Bill of Rights so that corperations have no oversight when they have blatently broken the law we might as well erase the names of those buried at Arlington Nat. Cem. from the head stones. Just because a Corp. has a lawsuit against it does not preclude them from future Legal Surveillance programs. As well I believe the President is attempting to evade potential discovery of his program if the suits go foward.

Telecoms have to cooperate when a court issues a warrant. That is the law. The President has an argument that is not based in reality. How would any litigation from thier poss. lawsuits effect their participation if future FISA spying. The issue is, will we give a pass to warrantless wiretaps? If we do we errode the right of a redress of grievances and the right of Privacy. If we reliquish our sovereignty, our Liberty, we degrade the Bill of Rights.

We are a country ruled by law. We declared our independence from a Monarchy - where the King ruled as well as reigned. A Monarchy is a very personal form of government, centered around an individual. Ours is a constitutional government (it seems so silly to have to repeat that) - We are governed by law and that process has served the populace very well.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/28/the-personal-presidency-of-george-w-bush/

-since when did it become too much efffort to expect a third party, ie. a judge, to look over the reasons that the government wants this information, before a business which provides "privacy" simply turns over records to them without ANY fear of being taken to task (again, in a court of law) for doing so. Immunity is how the executive branch is trying to take the judicial branch, the part fo the government designed to protect the rights of the powerless, out of the equation. I have no problem with co operation, but get a warrant first, so I know exactly WHY I am cooperating, not just because the big powerful feds will reward me for doing so, or punish me for failing to volunteer something that is not mine to offer.

Listening In?
i just saw this news on this dating site ---------- Tallmeet.com --------before

Without protection i would not cooperate. That would be tantamount so setting msyslelf up for disaster. If i am asked to expose myself or my business to possible damaging litigation i am left with little choice not to go down that road to begin with.

How much privacy do we really have these days? Unless you have found a way to live totally "off the grid" as it were, if you brought a house, car, shopped on line or used a credit card, your on a list somewhere. The amount of information that has been collected on individuals by private companies and utilized by the government, or other individuals is staggering. For a price, anyone can find anything out everyone with just the click of a mouse. Our right to privacy ended with the advent of the information age. We demand anonymity, yet post our peccadilloes on every medium available guaranteeing our nortoriety for posterity. Yet we want privacy. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear. But, if your diabolical machinations interfere with my right to life and liberty, then I think that the government who has a mandate under the Constitution to provide for the common defense, step up and protect those rights that others have fought and continue to fight and die for.

Um...Im not disagreeing with you to a point..But...the government has always and will always be spying on little brother. Thats just how society works. Even when the constitution was drawn up the government kept tabs on ppl. Intercepting letters from Europe/ the King to certain troops or divisions, to find out what was happening. Now with all this technology, and the fact that ppl are so corrupt and want to do the governments in we have to keep tabs on ppl. Im sure the founding fathers had no idea that we would ever be at war with extreme fanatics half a world away....Or would even fathom the thought of the type of communications we would have today. This is considered war against terrorism and there elements, not against us. Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about. P.S. Looking a certain sites under law is freedom of speech, and expression...So an employer could be so nailed if did NOT hire someone under those circumstances. Depending on the job.

lets make it a little more simle. The government "aslks" the telecom companies to send a list of every web site that you or anyone in your family has ever visited on the web. the telecom "cooperates". three years later, you apply for a job, and are rejected because your employer has a report that someone in you rhouse once visited a porn website. Should you be allowed to sue the telecom company (whether the report is true or not), or should they be immune because the government "asked" them to cooperate?
It isn't about protecting terrorists, its about whether you trust YOUR government to take private information that they have no legal rights to and handle it correctly. If you trust your government, then good for you, you are not of the same belief as the people who created our constitution, becaue the founders, the ones the right wing always turns to, told us to never trust our government, and deliberately set up a system where the people were never required to.

LOL at Bushco comment...Well If some ppl want to get technical Clinton was at the helm when they actually had a local tribes cross hairs on Bin Ladens turbin covered head..Clinton cancelled the order to shoot...Why?...Probably cause the Lewensky scandal wasnt underway yet....If we were in the middle of that scandal, you can bet your moms backhair that he would have ordered the hit to commence to drive attention away from the IMPEACHMENT proceedings. But instead he lauched a couple of cruise missles at Iraq to draw our attetion away from Monicas blue dress, and the "Oral" office...Too bad it didnt work....9/11 was well in the works before Bush ever came to office. We need a network of international communications tapping for the safety of all nations who are against terrorism...Doesnt matter what any party of President says, the terrorists want to attack any, and all of us that are against there fanatical ways.... WE need to keep tabs as best we can on those clowns.....thats a fact.

Immunity is not what is needed. A duly issued warrant is all that Government needs to Compel "cooperation." Upholding our laws is not a game where ones cooperation is a requirement. The telecoms are not above the law nor should they ever be. A law granting a blanket immunity places them above it to the detriment of us all.

Any competent intelligence agent can collect sufficient data either overtly or covertly to predict and prevent disaters without the need for laws which, in effect, create a police state. And without violating the rights of law abiding citizens. The lazy, easy way is to use police state methods These methods ALWAYS recoil on their employers. Good riddance to the Tekom law. It was/is attempt to create the Soviet Union of America.

Even reading this article could cost lives ....

Bush has immunized the Pope against the law of the land when he should be acting in the interests of children. He has tried to immunize his own administration. He has tried to immunize the CIA. We pay taxes, we finance government and we do not condone the breaking of the law. Here the President has again acted against the interest of the American people, and punishment will follow, otherwise we are not a free and lawfull country at all. In fact this administration appears to be spending most of it's time (when working at all) in defending itself and others against the laws of the land. The message is Mr. President: don't break the law.

In a democratric society we need to sue companies and goverments for wrongdoing. This immunization of telecoms puts our goverment on par with the soviet state in the 50's and the german state in the 40's. Open goverment is one of our most sacred liberty's and under the Bush/Chaney regime it has suffered a far greater attack than the twin towers in NY on 9/11 . . . Frenchynh

In a democratric society we need to sue companies and goverments for wrongdoing. This immunization of telecoms puts our goverment on par with the soviet state in the 50's and the german state in the 40's. Open goverment is one of our most sacred liberty's and under the Bush/Chaney regime it has suffered a far greater attack than the twin towers in NY on 9/11 . . . Frenchynh

In a democratric society we need to sue companies and goverments for wrongdoing. This immunization of telecoms puts our goverment on par with the soviet state in the 50's and the german state in the 40's. Open goverment is one of our most sacred liberty's and under the Bush/Chaney regime it has suffered a far greater attack than the twin towers in NY on 9/11 . . . Frenchynh