The problem with the lack of definition is that term could be a mighty big tent. e.g. voting machine companies whose software communicates voting tabulations. Anyone who provides services and uses electronic communications in the process. A lot of folks could be shoehorned into this definition if convenient and enabled by govt.

The substitution thing will prevent anyone ever being able to get to the bottom of the facts. Administrations and people will change. They will have no info about what happened and the Service Companies will have no incentive whatsoever to help sort things out. Any claims will just slip down a dark hole once it is understood the govt will claim secrecy to all.

This is a very bad portent for government’s dealings with private contractors. The intent seems to be to afford them the kinds of protections and immunities that governments (of necessity) have in terms of their dealings. And yet not to hold these entities either to the rules and standards that are applicable to governmental agencies or the standards and remedies normally applicable to private businesses. Appears these entities are to be responsible only to the govt that hired them and can then operate without either public or private constraints – with the ability to do for govt indirectly what govt can’t do directly.

This goes well past the telco spying in terms of the very dangerous precedent it sets.

Good point on the large electronic device tent that’s created by the nebulous language in this bill.

And you’re exactly right. The infrastructure of the immunity in this bill is complete coverup. We are seeing more and more legislation that is constructed to coverup unconstitutional horror stories.

The reason this egregious legislation has such an overwhelming chance of passing is that the American people remain ignorant and indifferent of it in big numbers. Hell, they’re ignorant and indifferent of most every aspect of the Iraq war. Talk to your neighbors if you think I’m kidding.

There’s an old aphorism about the American people getting the democracy or lack of it that they deserve, and most of them are getting precisely that.

The major media that most Americans depend on to get their news has evolved into a two bit crime blotter. Very few Americans read any newspapers or websites that might enlighten and teach them.

And again, while this issue is very much alive and discussed on blogs like this one, the vast majority of Americans couldn’t discuss it to save their ass. They don’t know and they are two ignorant to care.

That’s why these legislative enablers, (and the Democrats for the most part are as guilty as the Republicans) are free to enable and sellout to the Telco lobbyists and contributions that are tantamount to bribes.

1. To protect these undefined “Electronic Communication Service Companies”
2. To make it impossible to ever learn what transpired or who was involved

The problem with the lack of definition is that term could be a mighty big tent. e.g. voting machine companies whose software communicates voting tabulations. Anyone who provides services and uses electronic communications in the process. A lot of folks could be shoehorned into this definition if convenient and enabled by govt.

The substitution thing will prevent anyone ever being able to get to the bottom of the facts. Administrations and people will change. They will have no info about what happened and the Service Companies will have no incentive whatsoever to help sort things out. Any claims will just slip down a dark hole once it is understood the govt will claim secrecy to all.

This is a very bad portent for government’s dealings with private contractors. The intent seems to be to afford them the kinds of protections and immunities that governments (of necessity) have in terms of their dealings. And yet not to hold these entities either to the rules and standards that are applicable to governmental agencies or the standards and remedies normally applicable to private businesses. Appears these entities are to be responsible only to the govt that hired them and can then operate without either public or private constraints – with the ability to do for govt indirectly what govt can’t do directly.

This goes well past the telco spying in terms of the very dangerous precedent it sets.

LHP – You are right about Max Headroom. I actually think that we will soon have Edison Carter like newsmen running around soon with portable webcams duct taped to their heads. They will instantly be better than Suzanne Malveaux and most of the other lunks on the tee vee.

lhp and bmaz – i’m a big max headroom fan too…. and i have the entire series on dvd – it’s never been released, mine are ripped from vhs recordings of the original tv episodes. let me know if i should make you copies.

This statement is quintissential for what an idiot he is.

The way things are going you’re never going to know what the telecoms did and are doing to you.

All these components of the Surveillance bill that gets stuffed um “down your chimney” before Santa comes is going to be stuffed their complements of your jello livered Senators and Congressmen who are the same worthless type of people as Jello Jay Rockerfeller.

Immunity Prospective and Retrospective –You bet your bippy. Done Deal.

Basket Warrants you bet your bippy. Done Deal.

And again, again

there is component after component in the language of every bill so far that the arbiter of what’s illegal surveillance is D.O.J. All of that languageshould but won’t be stricken from any bill.

Preview not working either still.

But I do not believe that it is appropriate to grant what is called “retroactive immunity” because of what has occurred here.

Well that at least explains something that one of Specter’s Intelligence Committee staffers told me this morning. When she said that he was against telco immunity, I was initially stunned. But now, I understand it was just part of his double-speak.

Now is the time for a full-court press on each of our individual Senators and on Harry Reid. I’ll be calling both of mine tomorrow and asking them to vote NO on Specter’s amendment.