People tend to forget that this spying cuts both ways. Not only "suspected" terrorists will be subject to eavesdropping but also, for instance, crooked Republicans. If they allow one thing to happen, don't come crying to congress if you're bitten in the butt.

what? the laws only apply to the little people?...I say fry um.

Unfortunately, the technology is there and in place. To think that they will just flick off the switch because a court says so is kinda naive.

If you want privacy, drop off the grid. Don't use electronic communications. The future is here and we cant turn back the clock.

The Telecoms will be protected, just like the Blackwater mafia will be protected. Why?? Because in the Senate and Congress, there is a cadre of cowardly GOP-lites who will always get on board with shit like this because, you know, 9/11 changed everything and they don't Rush Limbaugh and Fox "News" to portray them as pussies in the War on Terror(which will happen anyway). Mark my words.

Homing pigeons. Let's go back to homing pigeons.
You can't trust the post office either, they have US government written all over them.

I think we need full disclosure, not on the possibly secret technological details, but on the business aspects of the deal. Was there a quid pro quo arrangement between the government and telco that, in exchange for the assistance in spying by telco, the government would lessen competition? Were there any investments in stock based on any deal not generally known to the public?

Now, most of your politicians get elected in part of restraint of competition in broadcasting which drives up the price of mass communications, so that only corporate financed candidates can afford to get their message (attack message) out. That's the principle reason why we're stuck voting for the lesser of the two evil corporate financed candidates.

We need to know what the deal is between the government and telco to foist the broadcast model onto the internet. Maybe the deal in letting the telcos of the hook is guaranteed net neutrality. And I can't imagine that the government had intercept operations with the telcos, with no similar arrangement with cable internet.

I don't see how any "defacto law" will exonerate what they've already done. It's time that the people sue their butts off for these civil rights violations. Even if Congress were, in a myopic trance, ever change the rules, these telecoms would still be culpable for what they've already done.

If I were them, I'd be shaking in my boots, too. Just because at this moment Bush is not in jail, that doesn't mean that prison will be his ultimate residence. The Pied Piper may have led them down the path of doom, but they had the clear "choice" to follow or not...

It would be good if instead of just complaining and commenting etc. about this, we did something effective, like writing letters to (so-called) representatives in Congress, and of course voting. I am, however, skeptical that that would be effective.

Question:

Why did we vote for Democratic senators and reps, again?

I dare say how much fun all of this will be when we have a democratic prez, congress, and senate. The republicans will cry buckets over the dems having all this power given them by the GOP.

Fuck da Police....state!

Permission to fly, Sir!

If you can, please attend the TSA hearings on Thursday (Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street, N.W. beginning at 8:00am). If you can´t attend in person, you have until October 22, 2007 to submit written comments through the Docket Management System. The docket number is TSA-2007-28572.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rense.com/general78/fedd.htm
http://blue-patriot-woman.dailykos.com/

Buried in the September 5 issue of the Federal Register, was a notice that Thursday, September 20, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) will hold public hearings on their so-called Secure Flight Plan.

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p102/484384.pdf

Come with me into a nightmare world where American citizens will have to obtain permission from the government before they can travel by air in the U.S. Your government (meaning the Department of Homeland Security) is up to no good. February 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will implement their ¨Advance Passenger Information System (APIS),¨ the gist of which is that you will need permission from the United States Government to travel on any air or sea vessel that goes to, from or through the U.S. The travel companies will not be able to issue a boarding pass until you are cleared by DHS. This applies to ALL passengers, US citizens and visitors alike. And how do you get said permission to travel? That´s for your government to know and you to never find out.

Now TSA proposes to do for domestic travel what APIS will do for international routes. That´s what I said: the new TSA rule would require that you obtain PERMISSION to travel within the U.S. Here is the summary of their proposed rules, which seem so reasonable, couched as they are in the
blandness of governmenteez [emphasis added]. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) requires the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to assume from aircraft operators the function of conducting pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to Federal Government watch lists for international and domestic flights.

[snip]

This rule proposes to allow TSA to ... receive passenger and certain non-traveler information, conduct watch list matching ... and transmit boarding pass printing instructions back to aircraft operators.

[snip]

TSA would do so in a consistent and accurate manner while minimizing false matches and protecting privacy information. Right. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn...

We propose that, when the Secure Flight rule becomes final, aircraft operators would submit passenger information to DHS through a single DHS portal for both the Secure Flight and APIS programs. This would [result] in one DHS system responsible for watch list matching for all aviation passengers.

Don´t you feel great knowing that your government will use economies of scale to protect you?

Edward Hasbrough states that these rules are more insidious than merely complying to demands for ¨Your papers please.¨ He states, The proposal ... require[s] that travellers display their government-issued credentials not to government agents but to airline personnel (staff or contractors), whenever the DHS orders the airline to demand them. But since the orders to demand ID of [certain passengers] will be given to the airline in secret, ... travellers will have no way to verify whether ... demands for ID are actually based on government orders.

Think about that: you will not be allowed to verify if the person demanding your papers is actually authorized to do so. In addition, the airlines or their contractors (or sub or even sub sub contractors) have the right, under the proposed rules, to do anything they like with your personal information including: keep copies of your passport ... as long as they like, use it, publish it, broadcast it, sell it, rent it, or pass it on to whomever they please.... [T]hey would have no obligation to get your permission for any of this.

Aside from the privacy issue, this is the DHS. Their past performance is an indication of future returns and we can look forward to true travel nightmares beginning February 19, 2008. Just think about the mess that occurred when CBP demanded that travelers to Canada and Mexico have a passport. Multiply that by orders of magnitude to imagine what travelers will be facing. If you can, please attend the TSA hearings on Thursday (Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H Street, N.W. beginning at 8:00am). If you can´t attend in person, you have until October 22, 2007 to submit written comments through the Docket Management System. The docket number is TSA-2007-28572.

The Identity Project at Papers Please is working to prevent your government from robbing you of your right to privacy in your movements.

I have always thought that best way to get back at telecom weasals is to cancel services based on their failure to live up to customer privacy standards. How many folks would sign up if their ads said they will gladly turn over your internet records to anyone that asked without a warrant ? They have broken user service agreements for sure. Would be an interesting test case anyways.

The lawsuits could bankrupt these companies!? The same companies that helped to violate the constitution!? How dare they? These poor poor multibillion dollar corporations need to be helped! Give them the immunity that they so sorely need!

Jackasses!

This is absurd:

" they may be forced to terminate their cooperation with the U.S. intelligence community—or risk potentially crippling damage awards for allegedly turning over personal information about their customers to the government without a judicial warrant.

They have contracts, which they are obliged to perform. However, if they are threatening to "terminate" the contract, the issue isn't support, but the legality.

Kind of like Capone arguing, "unless you let me continue, I'll have to stop my illegal activity." Should've gotten lawful warrants through the FISA Court and not circumvent it. The public could be punished for illegally intercepting information. Or are the telecoms arguing they're not "individuals" for purposes for Bill of Rights protections?

Typo - NOW 99% of the data they will collect is irrelevant crap they have to sift through.

Sorry about that.

It's just that this pisses me off because it's basically the technically knowledgeable abusing the rights of everyone and their grandmother, and the morons in the corporate media (of course) haven't sufficiently explained it's ramifications to the American people, so most folks don't realize what a giant assault this is on their freedoms.

It chaps my ass.

This is the only language the big corporations and bushites understand: Money. That's where you have to hit these morons to make them understand. Don't let up!

We know how this will go down. The Dems will vote against the measure with the "Bush Dogs" stepping across the aisle to support the GOP, giving them the winning majority. The rest of the Dems, including the inept team of Reid and Pelosi, will use the Bush Dogs as convenient cover, popping up on the news with the now tired "hey, we tried" bs. They absolutely count on the belief that most Americans have no concept of how bills get passed to cover their spinelessness. They could easily block the entire bill from ever coming to the floor or a single senator could put a hold on it until the courts rule on the matter and the GOP and the telcos are trapped, but that will never happen, of course. The Dems didn't do it on the funding vote, the FISA vote, the Webb troop deployment vote, and you can forget it on this (I imagine they will f*ck up the vote for funding S-CHIP, too). It's becoming hard to tell if it's just monumental cowardice or some effort to continue the daft strategy of hoping the GOP will bury themselves or what (maybe they hope to abuse these new powers themselves)

BTW, Rahm loves him some Bush Dogs, so expect them to get a fat wad of cash come re-election time to protect their incumbency. Some DLC heads need to roll in '08, too.

Whatever happens now, these telecoms will never get any more of my business.

What kind of "lawmakers" are these. Anyone who abets us in our illegal tactics is immune from legal action. Telecoms, Blackwater, and how many others we don't know of ...yet?

Proud American Liberal @ 38:

Whatever happens now, these telecoms will never get any more of my business.

So have you starting using two tin cans and a string? Who provides your internet service?

If all of the American people had a national initiative process where we could make laws, this nonsense would have been finished a long time ago and various corporate assholes who violated our laws, our privacy, and their customer relationships would be in jail.

Instead we have to "write and call congress" to plead for a little justice when we know the oligarchy gives a rats ass for us: we're not where all the money is at.

Please send an email to your Senators like this:
==============================================
Do not give retroactive immunity to phone companies.

Any company which violated our privacy in an illegal manner should pay damages.

This is about accountablity for breaking the law.

Phone companies have no motive to obey the law in the future if you give them retroactive immunity.

Once again, please vote against any bill which gives retroactive immunity to phone companies for privacy violations.
==============================================

Please write or call at least one of your Senators with a similar message. You are welcome to use some or all of my words without mentioning me. Most Senators have email forms at their government websites.

I have a theory:

If progressive bloggers and commenters write Democrats in Congress about an issue, they have actually learned to go the other way reflexively.

Think about it: since the Conventional Wisdumb has become that left-leaning bloggers are shrill, divisive characters whose shenanigans inevitably get the Democrats painted as liberal extremists ready to fellate al Qaeda, the weak-kneed political weasels known as the Congressional Democrats are now actually taking liberal blogger feedback as "what NOT to do".

For example, on the matter of telecom immunity, telecom lobbyists nowadays probably literally use printouts of Kos and C&L and FDL comments and emails to say "These are the lunatics that will get you branded as a "liberal" -- if you just do what we lobbyists want, you'll be recognized here in Washington as 'bipartisan' and 'willing to work across the aisle'. You'll guarantee yourself a long, productive, lucrative career... whereas, if you vote the way these bloggers want, you'll immediately start getting branded as extreme and partisan... by us if no one else... and you won't accomplish anything, anyway!" And people like Tester and Webb, on whom we pinned our fragile hopes, will crumble like sandstone crutches.

Thoughts? Too cynical? Or not cynical enough at this point?

Hey I like this guy named Ron Paul for president. He is for the Bill of Rights. I like the Bill of rights. It is a great idea. Too bad that document and the constitution no longer protects me. :( It got replaced by the patriot act. Anyways he is also for not taking your wages 4 months out of the year like gov. slaves. Income tax is unconstitutional. And the fed is a private bank. So look him up. And check out the footage of WTC-7.