Senate Punts On Telecom Immunity
from the get-out-of-jail-free dept
Last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved wiretapping legislation. There's been quite a bit of confusion around the web about how the committee handled the most contentious issue: whether to grant telecom companies retroactive blanket immunity for violating their customers' privacy. It appears that after an effort to strip out the immunity language failed, the committee only referred part of the legislation out of committee, leaving the immunity provisions in limbo. The net effect will be to leave the issue to be decided by the full Senate, where we can be sure someone will offer an blanket immunity amendment. Sen. Specter, who is the leading Republican on the committee and has occasionally been critical of the Bush administration's civil liberties record, is apparently intending to offer a "compromise" that would have the government take the place of AT&T and Verizon in the privacy lawsuits now pending against them. Frankly, I have trouble seeing how this is a compromise. The problem with granting immunity liability is that it undermines the whole point of the fines, which is to give the companies an incentive to obey the law. If the government takes the telecom companies' place in the lawsuit, that saves them from paying any real penalty for breaking the law. As a result, they'll have no incentive to say no next time the executive branch asks them to do something illegal. If Congress wants the telecom industry to take the laws it writes seriously, then it has to insist that companies pay the penalty when they break them. Meanwhile, the House approved wiretapping legislation without an immunity clause. And the White House, for its part, has vowed to veto any legislation that doesn't include a get-out-of-jail-free card for the AT&T and Verizon. So there will almost certainly be a showdown, either between the House and the Senate, or between Congress and the White House.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, immunity, telcos, wiretapping
Companies: at&t, congress, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Get your privacy violated, and get compensated via
This transferring of liability to tax-payers and outright denying liability cases to even enter courts has become quite the corporate moral hazard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What the president does would pretty much indicate how important the ability to wiretap really is. If he signs it then he really does consider the ability to wiretap necessary. If he doesn't then it shows that it's not really all that necessary but it's just something that they want to be able to do but that the telco immunity is what they consider critical.
By not including the immunity, neither granting or rejecting, it removes any question as to what is really important or not. Personally I think that ALL bill should be voted on one by one. That would probably remove a lot of the special interest legislation that occurs since you couldn't hide it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the wiretaps are illegal, why not go after the
It isn't that easy though. There is a major question as to the legality of the requests and the power of the Executive Branch in this situation and with the current laws in force (Patriot Act). The wiretaps are not as 'cut and dry' illegal as is portrayed in the post. If they were, you would see a major push against the Administration. What's happening is instead of taking on the Administration and the Patriot Act specifically, opponents of the policy are hoping to use 'friendly' courts to fine the telecoms for what, if taken directly to the Supreme Court, may be found legal. If the Democrats really had any guts they would go after the President and the Patriot Act directly and stop the legal tip-toeing around the issue. Don't count on it though, as there may be another terrorist incident before the elections and they don't want to get labeled 'soft on terror' around election time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So Many Things
How much they care about us.
1984, here we come. Or, have been heading there.
And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see another attack just before election time. I am not expecting one, but if one does happen, couldn't the other losers just point to it and say, "see how they have failed at protecting us". Double edged sword maybe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not go after
The wiretapping is illegal. Period. It is a felony to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. Bush deserves impeachment.
But nobody in power really cares. I think this whole telecom immunity bit is just a major distraction so people don't get in a fit about the fact that Congress is going to pass a law that doesn't jive with the Bill of Rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not go after
The reason there has been no action is that Congress has given up on its oversight duties entirely. They ask for documentation of legality, the Administration says no, and they let it go at that. Is that a useful course for anyone? Absolutely not. Would further congressional investigative action be better? Of course it would.
The reason for the telecom suits is that not everyone is satisfied by Congress giving up on its responsibilities, and that was the sole remaining avenue for redress of these grievances. I assure you, barring further change in the laws, these activities will not be found legal by the Supreme, or any other, court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not go af
You should have said 'my interpritation of the 4th amendment makes the Patriot Act' illegal. If the Patriot Act was so 'Illegal', why isn't anyone taking it to court? Again, you may find that it is legal, and that would be worse that the current situation where at least there is some visibilty on the actions of the Justice Department.
This situation reminds me of the standoff between the Regan Administration and Congress over the 'Contras' and Nicaragua. Congress passed a law making that said the administration could not assist the 'contras'. Well, no one was ever charged under this 'law' because if it went to the Supreme Court it would have been thrown out as unconstitutional. All Congress could do is charge people with 'lying' to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not go af
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get your privacy violated, and get compensated
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not g
The reason that no one is taking the Patriot Act to court is due to everyone having one of two problems. The first is that, for many people (ISPs, library administrators, etc), to challenge this is to guarantee putting yourself in line for a felony arrest for saying that it affected you. Most people have a second problem, which is that they are unable to prove it has been used against them, and challenges to a law can only come from those wronged (or at least appearing to have been wronged) by it.
This demonstrates why transparency in government is always a good thing. And, from the standpoint of keeping this law on the books, the Patriot Act was very well crafted to be as opaque as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jake Bell
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/08/59863
And that is an old article.
There have been many cases since then.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/court-strikes-d.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok e6/2007/09/court-strikes-2.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/judge_orders_fb.html
Yah I know that last one isn't entirely about people fighting the act, but it shows that there is still more going on about it.
And this one to help break through Jake Bell's sugar coated world into reality.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2006/09/what_it_feels_l.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not g
And who would be able to take the Administration to court over it? I can't just go to a court and sue the government, asserting that this law is unconstitutional. The law (or, in this case, illegal situation) needs to have been used against me. You can't sue based on the potential for an illegal situation, you need to have been in one.
The easy way for this to happen would be for the administration to bring charges against someone using information gained through warrantless wiretapping. So far, there hasn't been a single case of that. Which really ought to be everything you need to know as far as what the priority of the administration really is. If these were useful (in a legal sense), there would have been convictions by now because of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the wiretaps are illegal, why not go after
The telecoms will of course have the opportunity to make the case that their actions were legal. But right now, they're taking the position that they shouldn't even have to defend themselves--that Congress should whitewash their actions without even knowing what they were.
[ link to this | view in thread ]