Posted on 05/02/2014 6:39:57 AM PDT by Flame Retardant
The White House has asked legislators crafting competing reforms of the National Security Agency to provide legal immunity for telecommunications firms that provide the government with customer data, the Guardian has learned.
In a statement of principles privately delivered to lawmakers some weeks ago to guide surveillance reforms, the White House said it wanted legislation protecting “any person who complies in good faith with an order to produce records” from legal liability for complying with court orders for phone records to the government once the NSA no longer collects the data in bulk.
The brief request, contained in a four-page document, echoes a highly controversial provision of the 2008 Fisa Amendments Act, which provided retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that allowed the NSA to access calls and call data between Americans and foreigners, voiding lawsuits against them. Barack Obama’s vote for that bill as a senator and presidential candidate disappointed many supporters....
But another aspect of the White House document points to an obstacle that congressional sources said is holding up the House intelligence bill – something its opponents consider an opportunity.
That bill, sponsored by Republican chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan and ranking Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, would permit the government to access phone records without specific prior approval by a judge. Ruppersberger said while unveiling the bill in late March that they were “very, very close” to a deal with the White House....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
As for Mr. Rogers and his desire to be Obama's neighbor, I understand he's leaving Congress -- not one day too soon!
Tyranny starts with the building of a vast secret police infrastructure, and this is what it looks like.
Absolutely NO. Damn NO! Time to start making government smaller and less intrusive.
Wait till people see this in the MSM. They’ll freak! (sarc)
It’s not “this administration”.
After 2016, all this will continue increasing, business as usual.
Whether there is a R or D in the WH.
The elites who really rule this country will have “their man” running on both the D and the R ticket.
So either way you choose, you loose, they win.
The politicians are just doing what their masters want.
And their masters want complete surveillance of all US citizens.
They’ve had virtual complete financial transaction surveillance (it’s VERY difficult to hide financially).
They’re just adding in all communication.
They’re just keeping the records for later analysis; they only use the info to go after those who give them trouble.
Mindless sheeple will not be affected, so they won’t care much about being monitored.
That’s why we need someone like Ted Cruz in 2016.
Who is left to protect the people from the government?
What would the Left say if George Bush was still president and asking for this extralegal power?
Good point -- as the article notes, it's a followup to one of the bad legacies of the previous administration.
Fascism! It’s not just for Germans anymore.
2nd amendment
The argument against the Patriot Act is what we are now dealing with. It's the typical slippery slope argument, and it's usually correct.
The use of these technologies to spy on foreign suspects and those they spoke with in this country is perfectly reasonable. It evolved quickly into using the same technology to spy on everyone.
This is so clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment, it shouldn't even be a debate. It also crosses party lines significantly, but our 'all-knowing' government overlords are doing whatever the hell they want...the people be damned.
Not only the government spying on the people but now the people (companies) spying on the people. Next is neighbors spying on each other, then children ratting out their parents to the brown shirts.
Ultimately, spy vs. spy....like in Mad Magazine.
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, etc. World.
Leni
... and they need legal immunity because what they are planning to do would otherwise be against the law?
***DING DING DING*** No more calls; we have a winner!
Yep, this is the ultimate confession that the whole thing is illegal, and they know it -- otherwise, there would be no need for immunity.
Sounds ominous, doesn't it?
FMCDH(BITS)
From the govtrack.us website, the GOP was all in!
In the House:
Democrat Yea (105) ; Nay (128)
Republican Yea (188) ; Nay (1)
In the Senate:
Democrat Yea (22) ; Nay (27)
Republican Yea (46) ; Nay (0)
The Rats had the majority in Congress, but the GOP gave em the win.
Exactly true !
Even the suggestion of "immunity" absolves any accountability or responsibility for any action taken as a result of release of this information.
This administration has obviscated , ignored , denied and out-right lied throughout its entire existance.
That is why we have so many 'investigations' going on all at the same time.
We are still learning additional information from the Benghazi hearings and it is almost 2 years after the fact.
Tyranny , both foreign and domestic, is uncovered routinely to the point where we become desensitized to it, and almost expect it !
And as pointed out, it makes little difference whether the 'perp' has a (D) or an (R) after their name.
The Washington elites no longer reflect the wishes or even the values of the electorate who sent them there in the first place ,
and many of these 'representaties' don't even live, or have residence, in the district they proport to represent.
These representatives represent only themselves .. not the voters !
Even talking about granting 'immunity' demonstrates just how distant they are from representing the voters.
The Congress, once it is under nominal conservative control, needs to move in the opposite direction. Make these companies liable if they share data without a warrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.