Appeals Court Notes The Feds Can't Hide Behind 'Lobbyist Privacy' In Not Releasing Documents On Immunity Lobbying

from the open-up dept

For a while now, the EFF has been trying to get the White House to reveal information on who lobbied to get retroactive telco immunity for warrantless wiretapping. The "we're all about transparency and openness" Obama administration has been stalling as much as possible, and while it released some info after a long fight, it still insisted that it was keeping some information private, claiming a heretofore unknown standard of "lobbyist privacy." Yeah, that's a good one. Turns out the courts don't know what it means either, and an Appeals Court has said that it's a bogus excuse, and the government needs to hand over the info:

"There is a clear public interest in public knowledge of the methods through which well-connected corporate lobbyists wield their influence."

I'm still not sure what anyone expects to get out of these documents. We know who lobbied: the telcos did, like crazy. And the reason they did so is because they know they broke the law in assisting the administration in getting info outside the official process. In fact, the recent revelations suggest the telcos didn't just accede to administration demands, but they eagerly assisted in explaining how to get around the rules. So of course they lobbied to get immunity.

Filed Under: lobbying, privacy, telco immunity, warrantless wiretaps

Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity

from the why-would-they-want-immunity-otherwise dept

With the EFF finally successful in getting the federal gov't to hand over some lobbying documents involved in the process of granting telcos total immunity in lawsuits over warrantless wiretapping, the press is starting to go through the documents. Wired digs in and finds that the Bush administration was worried it would have to admit that the telcos had actually broken the law in order to get immunity -- but were able to route around that by having the Attorney General "submit a certification to the district court that the carrier defendant either did not provide the assistance as alleged, or did so in connection with a counter-terrorism program authorized by the president and pursuant to written assurances of legality." In other words, by doing a "this" OR "that," they could claim some sort of plausible deniability for the gullible.

Of course, the whole thing is silly. Why would the telcos need immunity if they hadn't broken the law? The only reason to push for immunity was because they obviously had broken the law. The entire push for immunity was never really about protecting the telcos, but about protecting the federal government from having to admit that it clearly broke the law as stated concerning oversight of wiretaps.

The other interesting element in the Wired report is that the Bush administration was worried that future administrations would reverse the immunity -- something it doesn't seem to have to worry about considering that the Obama administration has happily continued to hold the same position on warrantless wiretaps. However, the administration was unable to get anything put in the bill that would prevent future administrations from changing the immunity -- so, perhaps there's still some hope.

Filed Under: bush administration, obama administration, telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

Whaddaya Know: Obama Administration Seeks Delay In Handing Over Telco Immunity Lobbying Info

from the like-you-didn't-see-that-coming dept

Earlier this week, we noted that a court had rejected, yet again, the Obama administration's attempt to stall in handing over info on who lobbied to get telco immunity. At the time, we asked what excuse the administration would use to delay again -- given that the release of documents was due today, Friday. Well, it appears they haven't come up with any excuse... they've just tried asking the court yet again -- as if the first three "no" answers weren't enough.

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder what's going on here. As I said when the initial court order came out, I don't know what could possibly be surprising in the documents. It seems quite likely that the telcos lobbied hard for immunity. That would not be a surprise or particularly revealing. So who is the government trying to cover up for here?

Filed Under: stalling, telco immunity

Court Says No To Feds Attempt To Delay Handing Over Lobbying Info On Telco Immunity

from the 'fess-up dept

After a court ordered the White House to hand over info on who lobbied for getting telco immunity over warrantless wiretaps, the administration has been trying hard to stall. It first asked for a 60 day delay, in order to think about filing an appeal. That was denied. Then it asked for a 30 day delay for the same reason... and, surprise, surprise, that's now been denied as well. The White House has until Friday to cough up the info. Anyone have thoughts on what the White House will do to try to delay this time?

Filed Under: stalling, telco immunity

Senators Look To Remove Telco Retroactive Immunity For Warrantless Wiretaps

from the no-get-out-of-jail-free-card dept

Even as the Obama administration is still supporting immunity for the telcos who gave the gov't wiretap info without any warrants, a group of Senators has now introduced legislation that would repeal the immunity. The simplest explanation for this:

"Congress should not have short-circuited the courts' constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program."

Indeed. If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that. If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping

As Expected, Judge Dismisses Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuits Against Telcos

from the it's-the-law... dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but a judge has tossed out the ACLU and the EFF's various lawsuits against telcos for enabling warrantless wiretapping for the government. The reason it isn't a huge surprise is that the gov't last year, in a well publicized move, granted the telcos immunity from prosecution, and the judge basically pointed that out in dismissing the case. Instead, the judge said that if these groups have a complaint, it's with the gov't for granting immunity (not to worry, there are lawsuits against the gov't as well). Not surprisingly, the EFF and ACLU are appealing. Still, it does seem like these lawsuits are a longshot, even if it's disappointing. It seems ridiculous that the gov't can grant widespread immunity to a company for potentially breaking the law -- but, again, it seems that's an issue to take up with the government -- and once that's solved, go back and deal with the companies specifically. The judge's job is to interpret the law, and in this case, the law says that the telcos are immune. Now, if you believe (as I do) that such a law is ridiculous and should be seen as unconstitutional, than the issue is to take it up with the government. So, the judge's ruling makes sense, even if it's disappointing to see telcos potentially get off the hook for violating customer privacy rights.

Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping
Companies: aclu, at&t, eff, verizon

Judge Hears Arguments Over Telco Immunity

from the Constitutional-questions dept

We were quite disappointed with Congress earlier this year, selling out the country and granting retroactive immunity to telcos for any involvement they might have had in any warrantless wiretapping program. The immunity basically gave the White House a get out of jail free card that it could hand to any telco -- even if that telco clearly violated constitutional rights. No matter which side of the political aisle you fall on, this should be extremely disturbing. It basically lets the President decide that certain companies don't need to obey the constitution. That, by itself, seems to be unconstitutional.

Not surprisingly, the EFF and the ACLU sued over the granting of immunity, and the judge in the case heard the arguments on both sides on Tuesday. While there was a lot of back and forth, at least part of the exchange suggested that the judge agreed with the government's position, telling the EFF's lawyer that he should take up his complaint with Congress, not through the courts.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't a large part of the reason for the judicial system to be a check on the power of Congress and the White House -- specifically on making sure they don't do anything unconstitutional? It's not clear when the judge will rule, but I've yet to see a single reasonable explanation for why telcos should be granted immunity. If what they did wasn't illegal, then there's nothing to worry about. If what they did was illegal, but they felt that it was in the best interests of the country, then let them explain that in court to mitigate the situation. Granting retroactive immunity goes against everything the rule of law should stand for.

Filed Under: telco immunity
Companies: aclu, eff

ACLU Sues Over New Surveillance Act

from the ain't-over-yet dept

Following Congress granting President Bush the "get out of jail free" card he demanded, it probably comes as no surprise that he's signed the bill into law -- claiming (laughably) that the bill was designed to "protect the liberties of our citizens." It's unclear what in the new bill does that -- though there's plenty that does the opposite. Almost immediately, the ACLU has sued to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, saying that it appears to violate the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Meanwhile, the EFF is also preparing to sue over both the telco immunity issue and the expanded surveillance powers. All of these efforts are probably long shots, but it means this isn't over yet.

Filed Under: fisa, surveillance, telco immunity, wiretapping
Companies: aclu, eff

Senate Sells Out The Country: Approves Telco Immunity

from the sickening dept

Well so much for the attempts to filibuster and block telco immunity from being approved. The Senate has granted the telcos immunity with a 69 to 28 vote, effectively handing the President a "get out of jail free" card to not just protect the telcos, but to hide any evidence that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program may have been illegal. This is a total capitulation, and goes against every concept of checks and balances our government was established under. The link above quotes Senator Orrin Hatch saying:

"Congress should not condone oversight through litigation."

That is, perhaps, one of the most ridiculous statements to come from a politician, and should destroy what little credibility Sen. Hatch may have. The Founding Fathers established three branches of government for exactly that reason: so that there was oversight. What Hatch is saying is that the judicial branch no longer should have any oversight. The idea that Congress should not condone the very basic purpose of the judicial branch of government suggests that Senator Hatch needs a civics lesson in the principles that this country was founded under.

Filed Under: orrin hatch, senate, telco immunity

Senate Vote On Telco Immunity Pushed Back

from the good-news dept

While the initial reports on the so-called "compromise" bill on FISA suggested that it would breeze through Congress, it appears that public outrage over this issue may have some Senators thinking twice. While the House did pass it, concern from some Senators has now delayed a vote on the bill until sometime after July 7th. That would suggest that a few Senators were serious about filibustering the bill unless telco immunity was taken out -- and those in favor of letting telcos off the hook didn't have enough votes to kill the filibuster. That doesn't mean this is over, however. You can rest assured that telco lobbyists will be pushing hard over the next week to get Senators over to their side. Hopefully, there will be enough public outrage over this issue that Senators will recognize that handing telcos "immunity" for potentially illegal acts is not the way Americans believe in due process. Even if you think the telcos did the right thing in obeying the government, isn't it only fair for that to be established by the courts?

Filed Under: senate, telco immunity