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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!


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: 66
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]