FISA

[creidylad]

My head spins as I try to encompass all the ins and outs of this FISA nonsense.

Ultimately what I do not get is:

How on earth is it remotely legal for congress to vote retroactive immunity to the Constitution?

Isn't that a call purely for the courts, short of congress amending the constitution?

Comments

[creidylad]

Well. That's interesting. So it might come down to where reasonable expectations of privacy apply when in a contract with your phone company... ?

[evilmagnus]

You've seen 'Privacy Policies', right? Those bits of paper that promise nothing except that TransGlobalMegaCorps will take your money and run? ;-)

We really do need some stronger privacy laws here.

[ludomancer]

The amazing thing is that virutally no constituency wants this immunity, except the companies themselves of course. So who are the legislators representing?

The lobbying apparatus is so immense at this point-- legislators and telecoms are like the codependent spouses hurling beer bottles at each other until the neighbors complain, then they turn out the lights and have dirty make-up sex.

[creidylad]

It's all a big mystery to me. Why? Are there issues at stake that nobody is articulating well? Why not just get warrants in the first place? Why didn't the telcoms demand the warrants -- did they already believe themselves immune? They MIGHT have been. They aren't medical offices with protected confidentiality. If so, why do they need it enshrined in law? And how can anybody think this stupid law is going to hold up if anyone bringing a suit finds a friendly judge who believes they were breaking the law to begin with?

[ludomancer]

The wiretaps started before 9/11, a lot of people miss that fact. The truth is nobody really knows what the NSA was investigating, there's no transparency. But if they're so adamant about not getting warrants, it smells bad no?

Telecoms went along because they're always seeking favorable connections for government work (see also: journalists). The people flailing their arms about security forget that:
- telecoms are required by law to cooperate with NSA, etc. when there's a warrant
- without a warrant on record, you can't categorize the surveillance subjects as terrorists or anything else, other than to say "trust us"

A lot of people forget what rule of law is supposed to mean in this country. Even infanty soldiers are required to refuse unlawful orders from their superiors.

Once the NSA story broke, the whole immunity issue was raised by and for the telecoms. See also: the net neutrality "issue".

[zthulu]

This bill has nothing to do with the Constitution. Congress still cannot spy on U.S. citizens without probable cause and a warrant.

[creidylad]

I'm now even more confused as it's not clear to me if the telcoms broke laws beyond their user agreements with individual clients -- and I'm not sure they have privacy clauses spelled out with those clients.

Though I think we have a reasonable expectation of privacy...

Baffling. Baffling!

I feel in my bones it was all illegal and that the courts can still skewer them, and this congressional business is all smoke and mirrors.

I just still don't quite get the legal ins and outs.

[zthulu]

There is no expectation of privacy on the Internet. :)

If Verizon, et al. wanted to spend millions of dollars to monitor you, and then package up the data and hand it over to DHS, they could certainly do that. They have broken no laws or contracts.

Of course, no such thing has happened. No company would spend millions of dollars to do such a thing without being forced to. They're just not allowed to talk about it.

[evilmagnus]

They bill the government; it costs them nothing.:)

There was a bit of a stew last year when AT&T threatened to stop the taps, not because it was illegal, but because the Justice Department hadn't paid them.