See guidlines for posting here and provide your link to the news story, than whatever comment you may have.
Thanks.

Ummm, what does all of that have to do with a telecom surveillance bill?

-Hal

Sorry Hal, I was editing while you were typing.

Oops here -

https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-20-bush-eavesdropping_N.htm

From the AP

What? You mean Project ESCHELON and the Patriot Act aren't enough?

My dangerous dance with politics here: What in the world happened to the Fourth Amendment?

Fear is frequently used to promote political and military agendas. In this case, the fear is capped by a door slam "don't bother trying to pursue the government OR the telcos for violations for the "assumed privacy" that you signed up for...you simply won't win in court."

Another dance? Fear of terrorism should not dictate our lives as it does. You and I live in "The Home of The Brave". Please don't forget that part.

Your chances of dying from choking on peanut shells is higher than your chances of dying from a terror attack, but the constant lies and fear mongering has done its job well.

We are not free, and certainly are not brave.

AT&T even jokes about its unconstitutional wire tapping on its website -

https://craphound.com/images/ATT-Sickbig.jpg

Not sure what that image proves. Any image can be doctored.

I use AT&T online billing and I can assure you that it's not a doctored image. The image and header elements have since been removed from their current website, but you can still view a Google-cached version of it here .

I suspect that AT&T saw the tastelessness of their humor, which is why they took it down so quickly. For me, it was the "Online Liberation Movement" jab at personal privacy that was a bit over the top.

I didn't see that on the AT&T site, but I don't go there all that often either.

Don't know if their intent was to thumb there noises or trying to say online billing is safe. No matter which it was I agree it was in bad taste and the timing couldn't have been worse.

I do have one question, if anyone knows. Was this on AT&T's online billing site before or after the decision?

The date on [Google's cache of] AT&T's website is June 25, which is just five days after the decision.

Online billing IS safe. Bad jokes splashed across a big company's website is not so safe.

Back on topic: Does anyone else find it interesting that Louis Vuitton can successfully sue eBay for their "participation" in the sale of fake goods, yet no one can sue the telcos for executing (arguably) illegal wiretaps? Why is one middle-man saddled with policing traffic through their venue, while another is not?

I know...I know. Why is there both Phillips and flathead screwdrivers? Or as Tommy says, why are rocks hard and water wet? Guess I answered my own question.

Well than they were thumbing their noses, that's unacceptable.

Because our government gave them immunity. Doesn't make it right, but it removes the liability.

I have to agree with Noisycow. The fear-mongering that is being used to let the Government do what it wants (a.k.a. illegal wiretapping) regardless of our rights is highly unconstitutional in my opinion. You also have the media as a catalyst to the whole scenario as well, because a story that scares you is very popular and the true mathematical odds mentioned above about choking on peanut shells versus dying of terrorist attacks are boring to people and doesn't serve the Government (Big Brother) very well.

I will be the first to admit I don't follow things like I used to. This has yet to be voted on by the Senate and is scheduled for July 8th. It has been passed by the house.

From Senate records scroll down to H.R. 6304

Looks like now all that\'s needed is the presidents signature.

"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning," he said in a brief White House appearance after the Senate vote."

Maybe I'm just a little jaded, but wasn't one of the four great lies:

"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you."

A Federal Appeals Court ruled in April that Christie Todd Whitman, former head of the EPA was not liable for criminal charges when she lied and told all of us fools at Ground Zero that the air was safe to breathe.

The reason for their decision? She was taking orders from the White House.

Now to me, the next logical step is, lets find out who was behind this and drag the lying bastards out and put them in jail, but no one besides me seems to be suggesting that.

So it's OK to lie (as long as it's in the name of fighting terrorism) and now, the next logical step is that it's OK to trample on the Constitution (as long as it's in the name of fighting terrorism).

The lier is exonerated because it's all for the greater good and the wire tappers are exonerated because we've got to beat Al-Qaida.

And what's next?

I shudder to think about it.

Am I becoming a Libertarian in my old age? Or am I just a Commie-Pinko- Liberal?

Sometimes my Government disappoints me. Recently that's all that they've been doing.

I'm going to have another drink.

Sam

Politics, gentlemen. That subject isn't permitted in here in the public forums.

Please revise your posts.

Someday I wanna hear Ed's political views. =)

Isn't the meat of the law designed to protect the poor guy working in some remote CO office from repercussions if the black opps helicopter lands in the parking lot and Jack Baur runs in wanting to connect to some circuit.

It is similar to approaching an intersection when the lights are not working properly. Following the instructions from the guy with the badge is required.

The CO workers don't deserve to be held liable just because they are caught in the middle between the CLU & the FBI.

This was the original topic on this back in September

This is the booth topic where we discussed the pros and cons of the issue.

I think most of this discussion probably belongs in the booth topic and not in Telecom News.

My apologies. I should know better then to post while imbibing.

Should I delete my post?

Sam

Well personally I don't see that much wrong with it Sam, didn't really come down on any political group. I do feel it, as well as others, would be better in the booth topic I linked to.

John, THANK YOU for remembering that "the phone company" (aka telcomm provider) is a group of working stiffs TOO! :toast:

I have such mixed feelings on this bill it’s hard for me to even think about it. :bang:

The idea of allowing wire-taps without the “checks and balances” that were built into the core of our countries foundation, appalls me.

Then at the same time…. If the time comes that some “cloak and dagger type feller” slides up in my office from an Alphabet Agencies and says, “Hey Bryan I need a cross-connect from those two stitches to this here “magic box.” … and I say (gulp) “okay, what speed and format ya need?” … I don’t think my employer or myself really needs to be SUED! How’s THAT going to help anyone?

Man, the USA is about to be on one big nice logger if we aren't careful with our legislators

You smart people ARE aware that there are "splitters" at the Tier 1 carriers? One stream goes the the desired destination...the other to the NSA.

Our freedom and privacy has long been lost.

If you think I'm nuts, then you'd better do your friggin' homework.

Yes, we landed on the Moon. My mind is wholly in tact.

We landed on the Moon?

Moon, what moon?

Everything was logged back in the 60's. I think IBM may have had something to do with it.. Even Zerox and GE..

By the time our secret government tells anything 30 years go buy-by.

Those space shuttles get me nervous. Just to think they only orbit the Earth? Ya right.

Can you imagine the electronics on the lunar mod?

I often wonder how it worked. Base station to apple IIe can you change vector approach? The landing site looks bad.

This is not what Telecom News is really for. I'm going to lock this thread and you can add any comments or discussions about this in this booth thread or start a new one.

Thanks