John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2008-02-29 10:23 am
jackofallgeeks) wrote2008-02-29 10:23 am
Entry tags:
FISA and Telecom Immunity
So, if you pay attention to certain news outlets, you'll have heard about
the FISA legislation which is trying to get through our Congress. It has
passed the House of Representatives but is currently stuck in the Senate.
The original law expired earlier this month, and there has been a lot of
pressure to get this new bill through -- though, notably, the contentious
issue is retroactive immunity from lawsuits for Telecoms who cooperated with
the bill for the last couple years.
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it's what's responsible
for the warrant-less wiretaps you've probably heard of. I'm not familiar
with the details of it all, but the way it works is that communications from
foreign targets (people in other countries we know or suspect to be
terrorists) can pass through US phone lines, and we're interested in what
they're saying. Now, I imagine these communications can be (1) foreigner in
a foreign land, through the US, to another foreigner in another foreign
land, (2) foreigner in a foreign land to a non-citizen here in the US, or
(3) foreigner in a foreign land to a US citizen here at home. I imagine
there could be a US citizen in a foreign land to someone over here, too, but
I'm pretty sure any of those permutations fall outside the purview of this
law -- and in fact, so does (3), unless I'm mistaken. If they determine
that a US Citizen is involved, they can't listen in without a warrant. Of
course, if the US citizen is talking to a known or suspected terrorist, I
imagine they could get a warrant without much trouble, what with probably
cause and all.
So, all that being said, the immunity would set Telecoms beyond the reach of
the law in cases where they knew a US citizen was involved but kept
listening anyways without a warrant. In other words, a crime was committed
by a corporation against a citizen of the United States (at the behest of
the Government of the United States), and now that Government (or an arm of
it) wants to deny US. Citizens their right to restitution. The point is
that a crime was committed against a US citizen, who is guaranteed
protection from such invasions by the Constitution, and that is unacceptable
regardless of who asked for it or what motivation prompted it.
I think the FISA bill, as I understand it, is a useful tool in staying aware
of and prepared for threats against our nation and her people, and I
encourage it being passed through. But I would rather it NOT be passed at
all than that it be passed with a provision exempting corporations from
their legal culpability to We The People. We ought not sell our rights and
freedoms away for some small sense of security and the illusion of
protection, or else we will have and deserve neither freedom nor security.
Whatever your opinion on FISA, write to your
congressmen.
the FISA legislation which is trying to get through our Congress. It has
passed the House of Representatives but is currently stuck in the Senate.
The original law expired earlier this month, and there has been a lot of
pressure to get this new bill through -- though, notably, the contentious
issue is retroactive immunity from lawsuits for Telecoms who cooperated with
the bill for the last couple years.
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it's what's responsible
for the warrant-less wiretaps you've probably heard of. I'm not familiar
with the details of it all, but the way it works is that communications from
foreign targets (people in other countries we know or suspect to be
terrorists) can pass through US phone lines, and we're interested in what
they're saying. Now, I imagine these communications can be (1) foreigner in
a foreign land, through the US, to another foreigner in another foreign
land, (2) foreigner in a foreign land to a non-citizen here in the US, or
(3) foreigner in a foreign land to a US citizen here at home. I imagine
there could be a US citizen in a foreign land to someone over here, too, but
I'm pretty sure any of those permutations fall outside the purview of this
law -- and in fact, so does (3), unless I'm mistaken. If they determine
that a US Citizen is involved, they can't listen in without a warrant. Of
course, if the US citizen is talking to a known or suspected terrorist, I
imagine they could get a warrant without much trouble, what with probably
cause and all.
So, all that being said, the immunity would set Telecoms beyond the reach of
the law in cases where they knew a US citizen was involved but kept
listening anyways without a warrant. In other words, a crime was committed
by a corporation against a citizen of the United States (at the behest of
the Government of the United States), and now that Government (or an arm of
it) wants to deny US. Citizens their right to restitution. The point is
that a crime was committed against a US citizen, who is guaranteed
protection from such invasions by the Constitution, and that is unacceptable
regardless of who asked for it or what motivation prompted it.
I think the FISA bill, as I understand it, is a useful tool in staying aware
of and prepared for threats against our nation and her people, and I
encourage it being passed through. But I would rather it NOT be passed at
all than that it be passed with a provision exempting corporations from
their legal culpability to We The People. We ought not sell our rights and
freedoms away for some small sense of security and the illusion of
protection, or else we will have and deserve neither freedom nor security.
Whatever your opinion on FISA, write to your
congressmen.
Re: "Otherwise it wouldn't spell anything ..."