atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums General Telecom News Telecom Surveillance Bill Passes

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

"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.