[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel

Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups

Keto, Ivermectin, & Fenbendazole: New Cancer Treatment Protocol Gains Momentum

Bill Ackman 'Hammered' Charlie Kirk in August 'Intervention' for Platforming Israel Critics

"I've Never Experienced Crime Of This Magnitude Before": 20-Year Veteran Austrian Police Spox

The UK is F*CKED, and the people have had enough

No place for hate apeech

America and Israel both told Qatar to allow Hamas to stay in their country

Video | Robert Kennedy brings down the house.

Owner releases video of Trump banner ripping, shooting in WNC

Cash Jordan: Looters ‘Forcibly Evict’ Millionaires… as California’s “NO ARRESTS” Policy BACKFIRES

Dallas Motel Horror: Immigrant Machete Killer Caught

America has been infiltrated and occupied Netanyahu 1980

Senior Trump Official Declares War On Far-Left NGOs Sowing Chaos Nationwide

White House Plans Security Boost On Civil Terrorism Fears

Visualizing The Number Of Farms In Each US State

Let her cry

The Secret Version of the Bible You’re Never Taught - Secret History

Rocker defames Charlie Kirk threatens free speech

Paramount Has a $1.5 Billion South Park Problem

European Warmongers Angry That Trump Did Not Buy Into the ‘Drone Attack in Poland’

Grassley Unveils Declassified Documents From FBI's Alleged 'Political Hit Job' On Trump

2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

Visualizing Global Gold Production By Region

RFK Jr. About to DROP the Tylenol–Autism BOMBSHELL & Trump tweets cryptic vaccine message

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March

Something BIG is happening (One Assassination Changed Everything)

The Truth About This Piece Of Sh*t

Breaking: 18,000 Epstein emails just dropped.

Memphis: FOUR CHILDREN shot inside a home (National Guard Inbound)


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Court OKs immunity for telecoms in wiretap case
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/court ... elecoms-wiretap-221822018.html
Published: Dec 30, 2011
Author: .
Post Date: 2011-12-30 08:55:57 by PSUSA2
Keywords: None
Views: 49
Comments: 1

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled as constitutional a law giving telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

Thursday's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision regarding the 2008 law.

The appeal concerned a case that consolidated 33 different lawsuits filed against various telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint Nextel, Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. on behalf of these companies' customers.

The court noted comments made by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the legal immunity's role in helping the government gather intelligence.

"It emphasized that electronic intelligence gathering depends in great part on cooperation from private companies ... and that if litigation were allowed to proceed against persons allegedly assisting in such activities, 'the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future,'" Judge M. Margaret McKeown said.

The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers including the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, accuse the companies of violating the law and the privacy of its customers through collaboration with National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.

The case stemmed from new surveillance rules passed by Congress in 2008 that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.

"I'm very disappointed. I think the court reaches to try to put lipstick on a pig here," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued the case before the panel. "I think what Congress did was an abdication of its duty to protect people from illegal surveillance."

Thursday did not bring all bad news for plaintiffs challenging the government's surveillance efforts.

In a separate opinion on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the court revived two other lawsuits that seek redress for telecom customers whose information may have been compromised by the warrantless surveillance program.

Two groups of telecom customers sued the NSA for violating their privacy by collecting Internet data from AT&T and other major telecom companies in the surveillance program authorized by President George W. Bush.

Government lawyers have moved to stop such cases, arguing that defending the program in court would jeopardize national security and expose state secrets.

The suits will be sent back to U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Emails seeking comment from AT&T and the U.S. Department of Justice weren't immediately returned.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0) (Edited)

"It emphasized that electronic intelligence gathering depends in great part on cooperation from private companies ... and that if litigation were allowed to proceed against persons allegedly assisting in such activities, 'the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future,'" Judge M. Margaret McKeown said.

Interesting reasoning.

It may or may not have been "lawful" but it sure as fuck was unconstitutional. So how would private companies then be "unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future"?

Oh wait. I just noticed the judges name. Chick logic. No wonder I couldn't understand it.

--------------------------------------------------------
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll

PSUSA2  posted on  2011-12-30   9:00:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]