Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Retroactive Telco Immunity Opponents Buying TV Ad

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the elvis-has-left-the-building-and-is-definitely-not-watching-tv dept.

The Media 291

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both, many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason. And now some of them are trying to do something about it — they're buying an advertisement on cable TV. While it's not entirely clear what good, if any, this will do given that it's too late, at least it's cheap to participate — they're looking for $6 donations. The ideas is that, if more grass-roots groups do this kind of thing, their 'representatives' won't be able to afford to blow them off as easily."

cancel ×

291 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A TV ad? (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383007)

A TV ad?
Blarney: mad.
One does just fine
With simple sign.
Burma Shave

Re:A TV ad? (-1, Offtopic)

laederkeps (976361) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383419)

Before looking up "Burma Shave," I could have sworn you just made a joke about self immolation...

Re:A TV ad? (1)

Timosch (1212482) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383563)

You know, I read the book in German and I thought that it was funny. Now I read more and more excerpts on ./ and you know what? It's even more funny... =) Timosch is away (Reason: Buying Cryptonomicon in Englisch)

I wouldn't mind doing this (-1, Flamebait)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383021)

if I wouldn't end up on a spamlist for every new tree-hugging wackjob cause that comes down the pike.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383057)

if I wouldn't end up on a spamlist for every new tree-hugging wackjob cause that comes down the pike.

Because being against telco immunity means your a tree-hugger? WTF?

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (5, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383151)

I AM against telco immunity. I'm against domestic wiretapping. I'm against an administration that blatantly disregards the Constitution and regards everything they do as legal, simply because they are doing it. However, hard experience has taught me that contributing to ANY cause gets me on mailing lists for "similar" causes - whether I want to be or not.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (5, Informative)

rpillala (583965) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383199)

I've been donating regularly to this cause (ActBlue) and have not had this experience, at least with this PAC. I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner. Not that it wouldn't happen these days, I'm just saying it hasn't been my experience.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (2, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383515)

I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner.

Not "ironic", just hypocritical.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (0)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383711)

I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner.

Not "ironic", just hypocritical.

Isn't it ironic? ...don'cha think?

(Also, my sister got married this weekend and there were some thunderstorms later in the day after the ceremony. So I did have an opportunity to bring up the fact that it was "like, rain on your wedding day". Good times.)

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (1)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383949)

As an aside, the superstition is that rain on your wedding day is good luck. It's an ironic superstition, and pretty much the only example of irony in that song.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (4, Informative)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383911)

God I hate these arguements about the definition of ironic... Irony is defined by a situation in which the intention (or the expected results) of an action and the action's result are different. So, as applied to the above statement:

Situation: Pro-privacy group receives thousands of e-mails.

The intention: Pro-privacy group works for the privacy of the users of these e-mail addresses

Apparent result: E-mails are sold to a commercial entity, having the pro-privacy group give up the privacy of its members.

This is the definition of irony. In fact, most hypocritical actions are, in fact, ironic.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (4, Interesting)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383253)

I AM against telco immunity. I'm against domestic wiretapping. I'm against an administration that blatantly disregards the Constitution and regards everything they do as legal, simply because they are doing it. However, hard experience has taught me that contributing to ANY cause gets me on mailing lists for "similar" causes - whether I want to be or not.

I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing.

In the same way, although they are aware that they bother, irritate, or even outrage former givers by sending out reminder after reminder about all the giving opportunities available to previous donaters, they know that they will receive more money, overall, by doing this.

Unfortunately, some gut part of me reacts objectionably to this, and I cannot in good conscience send money their way.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383333)

i know what you mean - each year my wife and i donate alot to diffrent charities at the end of the year - if we had a better year we donate more.

the other day there was a guy who is one of the ones paied to stand infront of a store and try and get money.. he was trying to get money for one of the charities we already donate to ..

this wasn't a satisfactory answer for him.. he kept pushing for me to by some thing they had out there or to donate more right then.. even walking away wasn't working as he actualy followed me into the store, he was rude and just didn't know when to quit.

to most people that might make them stop donating to that orginization - i know better and know it was just he was an ass - but i will be sending a complaint letter in with my donation check this year.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (1)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383497)

Do you actually believe that they read the letters that come in with donation checks?

Probably more effective to call and/or find out people in upper levels of the organization and write/call them.

too high a price ? (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383401)

is the price of getting put on a mailing list too high to pay for a bit more freedom ?

Re:too high a price ? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384135)

Being put on a mailing list so I can get a bit of freedom?

How much do they pay to put you on that list? Then you know how much your freedom is worth to you.

Do SOMETHING. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383435)

You should do something, besides just complain, because the U.S. government has become extremely corrupt. For example, the government is already fighting a war with Iran [newyorker.com] . There is talk of "diplomacy", but that is only to limit awareness of what the corrupters are doing. The situation is the same as before invading Iraq. There was talk of diplomacy, but the leaders in Iraq knew that the U.S. government would invade, no matter what was said. The purpose of invading Iran seems to be the same as the purpose of invading Iraq: to restrict the supply of oil even further, so that oil prices will rise even further.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (4, Interesting)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383523)

Well I'm probably in the minority here. I have hugged a tree. I like trees. They don't complain, they look pretty, and they provide me with oxygen. And unlike with "higher" primates you can't get AIDS or any other social disease from hugging a tree. Trees rock, primates are mainly assholes.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (2, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383585)

Wacko-wack... I looked up "primate" in WordWeb after I posted:

Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet

I don't have good eyesight nor flexible hands and feet so it seems that I am not a primate. Thank goodness for that!

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (2, Funny)

LoofWaffle (976969) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383719)

I'm with you on this one. I especially like the knotty pines.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384003)

Thanks for the reply. In all seriousness I do very much love trees just for their aesthetic beauty. The fact that they help curb pollution and are vital to the creation of oxygen is certainly good, but perhaps less intuitive. One doesn't need to be an Environmentalist nor a Radical to love trees. Factories and parking lots have their utility in the modern world and it should be accepted that it is implausible to get rid of them. Cities like where I live (Toronto) have Lots of parks (trees) and even now the traffic islands in the middle of streets are starting to be less concrete and more tree friendly. It would be good if we could save at least a few unadorned forests as well.

Best regards,

UTW

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (1)

richieb (3277) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383555)

elite_liberal@malinator.com

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (3, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383131)

Well, you will end up on "Affiliates with wabcjok treehuggers, not patriotic, possible terrorist" list that government has anyway. Plus you will be on "funds anti-patriotic organizations" list. That's one hell of skeleton in your closet even if that ad does not get broadcasted (Will some TV station have balls to accept this deal? Most likely it will get stopped on executive level).

People tried something like this with Samizdat in Communist times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 [wikipedia.org] It didn't end well for most of them.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383177)

so, what you're saying is "I'd participate, but I've heard they're spamming so that'd cost me an email address for this particular purpose, which I can get for free everywhere. No, thanks, too much of a hassle, and anyways, that law's not sooo bad, is it?!". no wonder you were modded troll - if you value your email address more than your freedom, you deserve what you're getting.

Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (2, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383381)

What part of "pay by credit card" didn't you get?

Direct link, because editors are lazy (4, Informative)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383087)

The link is to a Wired blog. The direct link is http://getfisaright.net/promote [getfisaright.net] . And they're not asking for donations of $6, they're asking people to pay to run the ad - which might be $6, or could be a lot more, depending on the market and time of day. I think it would be a lot more efficient if they set up a fund to accept donations and ran the campaign from there.

Apparently they know how to get FISA right, but not how to get their advertising campaign right.

Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383351)

And too bad the ad is incredibly forgettable and badly done. Most people will not even pay attention to it.

It's a waste of time to put that on the air, the money is better spent elsewhere... Like paying to get a real in your face ad made, they need to not hold any punches, they need to be blunt.

Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy (1)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383765)

I'm at work, where the site hosting the actual video is blocked. Otherwise I probably would have commented on that as well.

Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy (1)

MrFancyPants (122224) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384057)

And too bad the ad is incredibly forgettable and badly done. Most people will not even pay attention to it.

It's a waste of time to put that on the air, the money is better spent elsewhere... Like paying to get a real in your face ad made, they need to not hold any punches, they need to be blunt.

Maybe they should hire these guys [youtube.com] .

Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383553)

Or maybe they do. For one, this gives you a lot more "connection" to the campaign if you can point to the screen and say "that is my ad" instead of "I made a small donation to the people who run the fund that bought this ad".

Two, politically, it's also an interesting move, because it puts actual people behind the ad campaign instead of some anonymous organisation. We will know when we see the PR in the mainstream press. If they play their cards right, the mainstream media might well write "thousands of people bought ads to protest the FISA act" or something like that. Which, of course, is a lot more headlines material than "some protest organisation protests FISA, as they did before".

Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy (2, Interesting)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383865)

That's a good point - but what wasn't mentioned in the TFS was that the cost of the ads (as mentioned in the Wired blog) goes up to almost $2000. How many people are going to pay that kind of money to get this ad on the air? And that was for a spot on CNN (between 6PM and midnight - how much you want to be it gets shown closer to midnight?), not during American Idle* or some other popular show - which would probably cost much more, as well as being much more effective.

Maybe they could go both routes - have a link to "go here to get the ad played yourself" and a link to "go here to contribute to our fund to play the ad during popular primetime shows"?

* - No, I didn't misspell it. I meant it that way.

What's the big deal? (3, Funny)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383109)

The only folks who are going to sue are those American hating liberals that are against freedom! Those stupid freedom hating liberals are always hiding behind the Bill of Rights and always trying to undermine our fight for freedom against the Terrorists and Muslims. Why, if you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

These liberals are just using this as an excuse to keep the loophole in the law so that they can accuse the Government of spying (yet another conspiracy theory!) and get rich! That's why all of the liberal leaning states are the wealthiest in the country - they sue innocent corporations! That's why the Trial Lawyers support the Liberal Democrats! They're trying to destroy our Republic, Capitalism, and the American way!

Then, they have the stupidity to try to ban our guns! They use the "Civil Liberties" as a screen but when it comes to the freedom to bare arms, do they fight for that? Nooooooo! We should put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Then those Liberals will fight for it!

Sincerely,

Average American who is educated by TV and Radio.

Re:What's the big deal? (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383143)

the freedom to bare arms

Depending on what the person looks like, I think they should have the right to bare a lot more than their arms. ;-)

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

theM_xl (760570) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383267)

In the words of Robert Lund: I'll support your right to bare arms and legs and mammaries [thefump.com] :-)

Re:What's the big deal? (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383173)

Never has a nick matched a post so well.

HTML Tags. (2)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383213)

Never has a nick matched a post so well.

I couldn't find the HTML tags for humor and satire.

Re:What's the big deal? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383277)

Who the FUCK modded the parent flamebait? It's insightful and hysterically funny.

No, the liberals sold out on this one too (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383799)

Obama (D, Illinois) - Yea

Re:What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383969)

...so that they can accuse the Government of spying (yet another conspiracy theory!) and get rich!

How does a politician get rich from accusing our Government of spying? I don't see the connection...

Expensive Ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383117)

I think they might suddenly find that airtime costs far more than they originally estimated.

"Oh, you want to buy a 30 second slot for your ad saying that our parent megacorp shouldn't get immunity? Sure thing. That'll be 10 billion dollars please."

I'm not paying money (-1, Offtopic)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383123)

For less blowjobs.

Bad Ad (4, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383125)

I've watched the Ad referenced in TFA, and frankly it's not very good. The 'pay to get your political ad on tv' is also not some kind of new initiative driven by the getFISAright crew, either. They've just bought into a political ad networking scheme set up at SaysMe.TV

Frankly it's hard to call this news in any sense, when it can just as easily be summarised as 'Another bad home-made political advert added to a pay-to-play-on-TV youtube.'

These are important issues folks, but let's not wet our pants every time someone mentions wiretapping.

Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (0, Troll)

Hackerlish (1308763) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383187)

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) CHANGE MY ASS ===) **** Obama (D-IL) **** (=== CHANGE MY ASS Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Tester (D-MT) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Clinton to her credit abstained

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (5, Informative)

LMacG (118321) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383291)

I'm not sure where you got your list from, but I noticed it leaves off Webb (D-VA), and further searching reveals it doesn't seem to match up with the Senate's own records [senate.gov] at all.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (2, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383697)

Thank you for that! Here's the list of both Democrats AND Republicans who voted for or against it, from the link you provided. I don't know where the GP got off just listing Democrats, both mainstream parties are firmly pro-corporation and anti-people.

It looks like my Senators (bolded) cancelled each other out. The Republican candidate for President didn't even bother to show up for the vote.

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.4) so you must make your coherent comment incoherent.

Sorry guys, slashdot won't allow lists.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384067)

both mainstream parties are firmly pro-corporation and anti-people

Don't the 28 Democrats who voted against it deserve some credit?

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383295)

CHANGE MY ASS ===) **** Obama (D-IL) **** (=== CHANGE MY ASS

Clinton to her credit abstained

Actually Clinton voted No.

Here's a link [huffingtonpost.com]

clinton voted no because (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383427)

she has nothing to lose now. she cant make it to presidency, wont probably be making it to vp, so she doesnt need any big buck telcos donating her. she has campaign 'loan debts' which she loaned herself, but hey, she's gonna have another book written soon and just pay them off to herself easily.

Re:clinton voted no because (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383511)

True. Obama needs Telco Money more than her.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383835)

She didn't vote "No." She just didn't show up for the vote. She was still in the midst of her post-primary pity party.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384211)

Are you blind?
In my post - I posted a link - she voted NO.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383345)

Clinton "to her credit"????? abstained??? At least those who voted one way or the other took a stance, whether you like it or not. I prefer politicians who stand for something, even when I don't agree with that something, to politically posturing, fence-riding, public-opinion-poll-reading, power-hungry low-lifes.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383373)

Wow, it's been up this long and no Obamapologists yet.

His name is GREAT for mixing with appropriate suffixes and other words...Obamania, Feauxbama, Obamaholics, Obamaphobe, Obamaphile...

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383631)

Most of the people who would be inclined to defend Obama on other issues are pretty pissed about this one, so expect any apologists to come from his base.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (2, Informative)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383377)

Not the right list. The one you want is here. [senate.gov]

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

H+FTW (1264808) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383393)

how is abstaining good?

As a responce it all ways worried me when politicians don't vote you have to wonder if they just do it to dodge making a decision which is exactly what they are paid to do.

that being said i suppose its better than voting yes on this particular issue.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383713)

Well abstaining on a bad bill in the Senate subject to cloture is good, because a bill needs 60 votes (not 60%) to proceed. Not voting for cloture is the same as voting not to proceed. However, and for the record, Clinton didn't abstain from this vote, she voted Nay.

Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (1)

H+FTW (1264808) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383789)

ah fair enough. being uk based I don't know the full ins and outs. thanks for the clarification

It's just a bunch of lawyers. (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383191)

Regardless of where you stand on the telco wiretapping, the legislative issue on wiretapping was only whether or not a bunch of greedy lawyers want another set of deep pockets to go plundering. Left wing leaders don't care about the spying. They just want another set of excuses to try and destroy the American economy even more than all their environmental regulation already has. The sad thing is that Republicans open themselves up over and over again for this sort of plundering by the left, as some twisted form of appeasement. They should have just made the wiretapping illegal, should have let the banks fail and homeowners get foreclosed, and stood for something rather than borrowing ever more on the backs of the taxpayers for others moral hazards.

Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383371)

i agree the bailing out of the banks and all the crap they are pulling - sorry.. this country needs to experience a hard hit - if it is another depression then so be it. people now days don't understand how good they have it.. they alwasy want more - they need to fall hard - and realize the onle person who is going to look out for their well being is them selves.

Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. (3, Insightful)

intx13 (808988) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383583)

Left wing leaders don't care about the spying. They just want another set of excuses to try and destroy the American economy even more than all their environmental regulation already has.

Ah yes, because all those career Democrat politicians are spending their lives working for a government that they are secretly trying to destroy via an economic collapse. Sounds reasonable to me! Seriously, drop the conspiracy theories and realize that everybody thinks they're doing the Right Thing. The problem is that, like practically anybody who has nothing else to do but talk about politics all day, they're idiots and have no idea what they're doing. But there's no vast left-wing conspiracy to take down the American economy.

Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. (3, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383843)

Ok, I'll bite.

the legislative issue on wiretapping was only whether or not a bunch of greedy lawyers want another set of deep pockets to go plundering

When Evil-X left me and my two teenaged daughters for another man (have you any idea what that did to the kids?) I was damned glad to have one of the "greedy lawyers" you hate so much. Likewise when I was forced into bankrupcy because the bitch had run my finances into the ground, I was damned glad I had a "greedy lawyer".

When I got a detached retina this year I was damned glad I had a "greedy surgeon", who charged a lot more than the lawyers. You, sir, have a jealousy problem. And no, IANAL. I do databases at work for a whole lot less maney than the doctors and lawyers I have been GLAD to pay.

Left wing leaders don't care about the spying. They just want another set of excuses to try and destroy the American economy

Odd, when the Republicans were in power everybody I knew was hurting financially, but then again I don't know many rich people.

even more than all their environmental regulation already has

I'm 56. When I was a kid, few had air conditionaing in their cars. But even when it was ninety five degrees farenheight you rolled the windows up driving through Sauget where Monsanto had their plant. Anybody who curses Nixon for signing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is either a polluter or an idiot, or too young to remember what it was like before environmental regulation.

Now I guess I need to go to the Biters Anonymous meetings again, because IHBT.

Throw the bums out. All of them (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383231)

and then throw them out again.

Never vote for an incumbant again, at least
for another 3 election cycles.

I don't care, throw them out. You think you
have a 'good guy' in congress? You're wrong.
Throw them out.

All of them. /that/ is the fix for so called special interest lobbies. Take away their power.

That is the only fix.

Better that the government never get anything
else done.

Congress Writes the Laws... (4, Informative)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383271)

"Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in...

The 110th Congress Composition: 282 Democrats - 274 Republicans - 2 Independents. So please tell me how Republicans created this mess?

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383357)

You must be new here.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383391)

You must be new here.

I have no idea what this means, but my number is lower than yours...see I'm not new here, I just don't understand most of the stupid memes ;-)

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (4, Informative)

CauseWithoutARebel (1312969) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383451)

Aside from the fact that it was a republican administration that initiated the illegal program, four senior republican lawmakers who attempted to expand it with the "Terrorist Surveillance Act (2006)" and a senior republican (Specter R-PA) who introduced immunity, I can completely see how it wasn't the republicans who created the wiretapping and immunity mess...

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (3, Informative)

CauseWithoutARebel (1312969) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383601)

Not to mention the fact that the program was divulged in 2005, and was active well before that, and that the current congress wasn't seated until January, 2007...

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383965)

Ok, that I can concede...the creation of the mess lies in the hands of Republicans. However, the SANCTIONING of said mess lies fully in the hands of the Congress, who created and approved this bill. So I stand by my assertion that the article summary is biased. Such inclusion just cheapens an otherwise decent argument. It's funny how slashdot threads are often better stated than the slashdot articles. Maybe slashdot should get some new editors.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (2, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383535)

While the democrats are certainly not blameless (especially Pelosi and Reed) you might notice that only one republican congress person (Johnson R-IL) and not a single republican senator voted against this bill.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383567)

You'd make a great lawyer or politician... ignoring the facts that are inconvenient to you.

"This mess" wasn't created fully formed YESTERDAY.

Republicans were only recently unseated out of BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

They had is majority in both houses of congress during two terms of a republican president.

Yeah, the Dems surely could have done more with their newly won majorities.

However, let's not LIE about who had full posession of the ball before this.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (2, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383773)

Show us the percentage of republicans who voted for and against and the percentage of democrats, and point out the democrats who are only democrat in name, like Pelosi.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (3, Informative)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383857)

It doesn't matter. It still required Democrats to vote for it to pass, which is exactly what happened. Thus, it isn't a problem created by Republicans, but by Congress, which consists of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383991)

Congress doesn't actually write most laws from scratch, especially laws like this. They're given a nontrivial amount of prodding, assistance, etc. by the corporate sponsors.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

DrIdiot (816113) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384029)

Because a grand total of 0 Republican senators [senate.gov] and 1 Republican representative [votesmart.org] voted against it?

Because it was sponsored by a "Democrat" from Texas and two Republicans?

Because 28 out of 51 senate Democrats voted against it and 128 out of 233 house Democrats voted against it?

Because the proposed amendment to remove Telco immunity was sponsored by Democrats [votesmart.org] ?

You know who created this mess? The individual congressmen who voted for the amendment.

Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384139)

Sponsor: [loc.gov] Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] Democrat [wikipedia.org] Cosponsors Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] Republican [wikipedia.org] Rep Smith, Lamar Republican [wikipedia.org]

The sponsor is a Democrat, the cosponsors are Republicans. Both wings of the Corporate Party are behind this dastardly abomination.

This Presidential election, vote Barr, McKinney, or Baldwin [wikipedia.org] . Unless, of course, you want your corporate overlords to keep taking your rights and ecology away.

Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383275)

Every Sunday morning, during the political talkshows commercial breaks, I scream at my TV because of the stupid ExxonMobile, BP, etc commercials telling everyone how much they care about the environment because they are investing millions into renewable energy research. It makes me cringe to think that these companies are only doing "research" to patent technology breakthroughs that they can hold hostage to squeeze every last dime out of the pumps. I want someone to call these people on their bullsht and I would love for the next commercial to be someone calling them on their sht. The company saysme.tv from TFA is adding an upload section so people can make their own commericals and pay to have them aired. I think this is genius and if they were a public company I would invest heavily.

Great Resource (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383287)

If SaysMe TV does work, all of us who are pissed at the direction things have taken the past 8+ years should remember it and use it in the future. I am very angry about FISA, and intend to punish those of my congresspeople who voted for it. Sadly, I don't think SaysMeTV will help us in this fight. Still, it's a great tool if it works.

I'm not paying. (1, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383353)

I'm not gonna pay. It is not because I liked or agreed with the wiretapping. However I support the Immunity. In general going against the Immunity is saying I hate big companies because they have more money then I do. Having them fined or jailed will do nothing positive. If you fine them you pay the fine as it will increase costs. If you put the guys in jail you pay to put someone who isn't a threat to society, and pay to keep him there. This case took a while and didn't get marked illegal 100% there was a split, meaning even if they did hire lawyers to determine if what they were doing is legal or not they may have gotten the same mixed answers. Thus coming down to a risk analysis. Do it and get some liberal hippies pissed off at us who are already hate us anyways, don't do it and have possible retribution by the government. Especially think about the times were Bush was at a all time high, going against national security was unpatriotic. Google said no and their stock fell, facing legal problems. By not passing this Immunity it would give the government a method of forcing companies to do illegal things... The question is why isn't the government taking responsibility for telling the TelCos to do that. The Government should give each of those customers and the people who they called during the illegal search $100 for each call they illegally wiretapped, and take it out of their assets.

Re:I'm not paying. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383587)

It's not about punishing TelCos. It's about the Discovery Phase of such a trial. In the discovery phase we'd find out about who they tapped and what they listened to. That's important because knowing this admin, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect it possible that they might be lying when they said "we only tapped the phones of folks who spoke to overseas terror suspects."

Maybe. Just MAYBE, they listened to a few more people who weren't speaking to terror suspects. Maybe they even listened to purely domestic calls. Honestly the actions of this admin sound a heck of a lot like what Nixon was forced to resign over.

With the immunity in this bill, any lawsuit against TelCos is thrown out even beofre the discovery phase.

I'm still pissed too. I've left the D party. (5, Insightful)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383395)

I'm done with party politics. The leadership of both political parties have shown that they are willing to trade the legal principals of our founding fathers for short-term political gain. The parties have acted to retain their own power and authority at the expense of our Bill of Rights. This is simply unacceptable.

But the solution cannot be found in insular political organization. That is, organized liberals cannot fix this. Nor can organized conservatives. The only solution here is for the population of liberals and conservatives to realize they have a greater sense of purpose by opposing the GOP/DNC lock on national politics. Political enemies must become friends in order to oust the real enemy of freedom. And they have a lock on all the power the state can muster.

I sadly believe that our republic has already fallen, and the "great experiment" is now over.

Re:I'm still pissed too. I've left the D party. (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383733)

There have been shifts before. When the Republican Party formed and grew, the Whig Party numbers declined, like rats fleeing a sinking ship. If another party formed with a strong popular base, there would likely be a tipping point where its growth would be unstoppable. Given the decline in strong support for both parties, a new party starting and gaining ground doesn't seem entirely impossible to me. The Green and Libertarian Parties don't quite have it right, but maybe something like them.

I won't argue the USofA is in a state of decline. The America that won WWII and put a man on the moon is gone.

Publicity stunts and shams (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383399)

The last thing these people (should) want is to bring this issue into the consciousness of the general public. And I hardly doubt companies like AT and T and their clones need donations. At best the call for donations is a sleazy publicity stunt. At worst it shows how cheap and money grubbing they are.

OMG! Teh gulags r overflowing! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24383415)

Americans are being sent off to forced labor camps RIGTH NOW for standing up to corporate jewish nazis! ITS TRUE! I READ IT ON INDYMEDIA SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE! And if you don't believe me UR A NAZI!!!

Accuracy (2, Insightful)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383421)

"many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason." 1. I don't think they are spying "for no reason" 2. They are intercepting calls made to/from a foreign country. If you want sympathy for the cause, make sure you describe the issue accurately.

The gentleman doth protest too much (3, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383431)

immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason.

It is neither "spying on American citizens" nor "for no reason." It's pathetic that you've got to make it sound like something more sinister than it is in order to try and scare people to your side of the fence on the issue. If Microsoft had written that article summary, people would be screaming "FUD!"

The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant. Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (5, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383529)

You are aware are you not that the risk of an American being killed by a terrorist is just about the lowest of all the things likely to kill one right ? Cars kill the most, ciggarettes and burger king are pretty high on the list, PLANE CRASHES are higher than terrorists ... heck SUICIDE is a higher risk.

You American's kill more of each other every year than the terrorists can pull of combined ! You kill yourselves more often than they have managed to do !

If I were you, I would stop worrying about a few people whom you think is fighting a religious war (they are not, suicide missions occur in all wars and all religions, you yourselves send your spies out on missions with arsenic pills in their pockets, the Japanese fought you with suicide pilots - and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it - the 'muslim extremisms' thing is a great big lie which THEY love to tell as much as your leaders love to repeat it) and worry a little more about why it seems that you cannot stop blowing peoples brains out (note: I said nothing about owning guns, I'm in FAVOUR of gun-ownership, for a reasonable value of 'gun' at least - I am talking about what you DO with them, I'm sure if we banned guns you would just end up killing each other with knives so it's probably a different problem altogether).

Short version: Terrorist won't do anything to you. Other American's are about 500 times more likely to kill you... or maybe that is WHY you are happy to defend the government listening on your neighbours' phone calls without so much as a judicial review ? It's just easier to pretend you fear terrorists than admit you fear the guy next door ? Especially if he has a darker skin than yours ?

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383727)

It's just easier to pretend you fear terrorists than admit you fear the guy next door ? Especially if he has a darker skin than yours ?

Hey! My skin's darker than my neighbors, you insensitive clod!

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383539)

Heretic.

Prepare to be modded-down into -1 Troll hell.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383665)

...well then: IF ALL SURVELLIANCE that went on was on the up and up then the Telcos have nothing to worry about.

We have transparency in governance in democracies for a reason. If there
is no reason for shame then we can lay everything out in the open. If
there are genuine national security concerns, we can proceed with the
process of the courts and legislature accomodating for that too.

There's no good excuse for violating our own most fundemental rules,
and our own most fundemental principles.

No one is above the law.

Not presidents.

Not corporations.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383741)

The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant.

The "conversations originating overseas" were illegal to monitor too! If they're going to break the fucking law to do that, then nothing stops them from doing exactly the same to Grandma and little Jimmy.

You're essentially saying, "they broke the law, but that's okay because they wouldn't break the law" which is just fucking stupid.

Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest

No, it shouldn't! Statistically, I'm as likely to be struck by lightning as I am to be killed by a terrorist. And I'm vastly more likely to die in a car wreck, or by slipping in the shower, or doing any number of other things that everybody does every day without particularly worrying about it. So no, this hysterical, cowardly obsession with the terrorist boogeymen should not be in everybody's fucking interest!

I'm more scared of the Bush administration than I am of the terrorists. By a wide margin.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383853)

The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant. Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Any conversation with anyone outside the US can be intercepted, not just the ones that originate overseas or are from known or suspected terrorist organizations. If Grandma is in London, England, or even London, Ontario, the conversation can now be legally listened to. Also, the FISA courts were set up as a rubber stamp. IIRC, there's a special room at the NSA where a federal judge does nothing but grant warrants for FISA wiretaps. The whole process takes about five minutes, and the warrant was retroactive for a few days so that nothing important would be missed. The current administration felt that this was too restrictive, so they just stopped following the law.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (1, Flamebait)

CauseWithoutARebel (1312969) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383869)

It is neither "spying on American citizens"

How is wiretapping Americans making phone calls not spying on Americans making phone calls? It seems to me that wiretapping is most certainly a form of spying and I'd be interested in what legitimate definition of spying you're using in which wiretapping, for some reason, just doesn't count.

nor "for no reason."

Fine. What reason then? Cite instances where the American government has wiretapped an American citizen and either explained clearly and completely why they did it, or

My standards of proof are higher than just taking mush-mouthed claims of "national security" to heart and walking away. What credible threats were investigated and what, if any, convictions (hell, what charges even) stemmed from any of the illegal wiretapping?

Now, on top of that, justify the illegal aspect of it by explaining why the existing FISA standards had to be illegally circumvented in each case.

The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored.

Yes, with proper warrants. Hence the difference between wiretapping which everyone is or could be made aware of and what we're actually discussing here: secret and illegal warrantless wiretapping.

with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Since your commentary is so immature, I won't bother dignifying any response you post with further attention. I'm sure if I wanted a legitimate discussion instead of empty political theatrics, I could find it, so I don't need to bash my head on the wall with you.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (3, Insightful)

ravnous (301936) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384049)

If some government official came up to me and told me they were investigating a suspected terrorist and they needed such and such help from me, I'd assume it was a legit request and comply. I'd also assume that the government was the one who would assume the consequences if the request was not valid and I did something I wasn't supposed to do. If it was Joe Blow coming to me and asking me to allow him to wiretap someone, that's different. A government official comes to your door with credentials of authority. Besides, there was no profit in this for these telcos. They didn't gain anything financially by allowing these wiretaps. In fact, they had to pay their employees to work with whoever was asking for these wiretaps when they could have been doing something to help their company's bottom line instead. To me, this smacks of typical left-wing "All corporations are evil, let's get 'em" mantra.

Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (1)

evil_arrival_of_good (786412) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384061)

Thanks, totally agree.

Not yet in my area (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383691)

Before I even looked at the /. comments, I clicked through to the Wired article, found the link to saysme.tv, and tried to buy an ad. However, I live in St. Louis, and was very disappointed to see that they don't yet support my area, nor any nearby cites up to and including Chicago and Memphis.

Of course, I'm not a cable subscriber, I watch satellite TV. Anyone know if/when DirectTV and DishNetwork will be supported?

Also, while some areas are cheap, some are expensive. I expect that satellite TV will also be expensive. They need a way to put money down for a part of an ad, which would run when enough people sign up for that area.

Correction (3, Insightful)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383735)

many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason

many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no good reason

Their was a reason for the spying. You may think it was good, most Slashdot members appear to believe that it was not a good reason, but a reason was given (after the fact). That reason being, they were spying on international calls believed to be involved in terrorism.

I'm not defending the ISP's or the Government, but the original post is misleading IMO.

A free alternative defense: (4, Funny)

edalytical (671270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24383783)

Consul corporate security clones There Cohiba digicash infowar USDOJ CDMA sniper Qaddafi supercomputer are INSCOM Aldergrove Legion of Doom BRLO other Rand Corporation ASIO cracking Downing options Street high security Abbas lock picking namely Albright Europol Consul Rumsfeld NATO bluebird false George W. Bush nitrate analyzer South Africa mindwar Armani Skipjack CISU positives world domination LABLINK Kh-11 or secure try Defcon!@#d%d&*(";dd;,[NO CARRIER

Surveillance is (1)

evil_arrival_of_good (786412) | more than 6 years ago | (#24384121)

Surveillance is not a denial of rights, suppression of freedom, nor any form of physical harm. Surveillance is how we defend the populace. If a police officer asks me where I am going, I tell him. I know the process is to catch a bad guy and suppress his freedom. I like that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?