Telcom Amesty on Wiretaps

<p>Well its Friday night and no date. So browsing Yahoo News and come across this: Opposing view: Telecoms acted in good faith - </p>

<p>a quick search gave me this: [Senate</a> Approves Telco Amnesty, Legalizes Bush’s Secret Spy Program | Threat Level from Wired.com](<a href=“Senate Approves Telco Amnesty, Legalizes Bush's Secret Spy Program | WIRED”>Senate Approves Telco Amnesty, Legalizes Bush's Secret Spy Program | WIRED)</p>

<p>but if FF says that FSIA is OK, and why worry,

post #123 of thread [italics] Any other Republicans thinking of voting Obama? [/italics]</p>

<p>then why are does, W, scold the House for not granting amnesty to Telecoms? Convoluted thinking?<br>
[House</a> Democrats to Bush: No way on telecom immunity | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com](<a href=“CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news”>CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news)</p>

<p>The real issue that the WH and the Congress are arguing about is whether to give the telecom companies (such as AT&T) immunity from prosecution. </p>

<p>There have been plenty of untrue claims flying, but here’s an excerpt from an NPR interview with Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence:</p>

<p>"BUSH: Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could re-open dangerous gaps in our intelligence.</p>

<p>NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn’t made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn’t it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn’t renewed by tomorrow?</p>

<p>MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it’s a very complex issue. It’s true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector."</p>

<p>You can hear the whole interview here and also read it:
[NPR:</a> Intel Chief: Telecom Immunity a Security Issue](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19072207]NPR:”>Intel Chief: Telecom Immunity a Security Issue : NPR)</p>

<p>A couple more points, thisoldman: What’s expiring is the Protect America Act, which covered some perceived gaps in the FISA law. We, as I understand it, will still be covered under the FISA bill.</p>

<p>Also, the argument has been made that if the telecoms don’t get immunity, they’ll stop cooperating with the government. But these companies (and anyone else) are required by law to cooperate when presented with a warrant. So that argument’s a straw man too.</p>

<p>I would guess that our Government does not tell the Telecoms which tap is minor, major, or critical. But is unconcerned enough that its NOT that critical
[Phone</a> company cuts off FBI wiretap for unpaid bill | U.S. | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1021326220080110]Phone”>http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1021326220080110)</p>

<p>and as always, there is always the profit least we be communist.</p>