Possible Internet Regulations Threaten Opportunity

by: The Opportunity Agenda

Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 12:52

Restricting the use of Internet based alternatives to telephones, such as Skype and other voice over Internet applications, is just one example of what changes could take place. As telephone and cable providers aggressively market often monopolized products, bundling Internet and telephone packages into one service plan, services that are free over the Internet jeopardize telecom companies own share in person to person communications.

FISA Fight: Attack Of The Epic Failure

by: MBoz

Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 14:30

Today is going to go down as a dark day in our nation's history, as the Senate completes its total capitulation to the Bush administration and its corporate masters, through passing legislation that dramatically expands the government's surveillance powers and immunizes the companies responsible for illegally spying on us from any form of legal redress for the victims.

What if Barack Obama Has A Strategy Bigger Than All Of Us?

by: steve katz

Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 15:11

These attacks aren't coming from the Right; they are coming from the Left...many from the "Open Left."  To quote my favorite line from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, "Who are you people?!"

The media are loving it, panels, debates, discussions, it's endless, my finger has a callous from changing the channel.  Yet, you all keep throwing fuel on the fire.  Why?

You want vengeance on the Telecoms.  Throw the CEOs in jail.  Let's just shut them down, who needs communication, anyway?  And, let's sue them.  It could reap billions.  Except, who are we suing, who's going to pay?  Why us of course.  So what if the country is going down the financial toilet.  Hey, we can help it.

You want vengeance, vote Bob Barr, he made a career of it.  Hey, according to CNN Ralph Nader is up to 6% in the polls.  Come on Left, a couple of more blogs and we can get him to seven.

Maybe, just maybe, if you could see beyond your rage, you would see a plan emerging, a plan to bring our county together, for the good of all of us.

Barack Obama is running a 50 state strategy.  Do I think he can win in every red state, no.  Do I believe he can do 5%, 10%, even God willing, 20% then a Democrat should, you bet I do.  Do I think moving to the moderate, tolerant of all point of views, inclusive center will help bring this about, for sure.

And, what would it mean?  A coalition of Americans, from all parties, and groups, and walks of life.  The support he needs to end the war, stop global warning, protect our rights, and bring prosperity back to our Country.  Isn't that what we all want?

To me the ending of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, (at least the first version), is that hope springs eternal, there can be a better life for all of us.  It's time to stop thinking about what's bothering, you, and start think what you can do for the benefit of us all.

We are all in the same boat.  It's time to for all of us to start rowing in the same direction.

The Seeing the Documents Excuse

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 19:14

For those like me who insist that the President's domestic surveillance program must comply fully with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, the only way for Congress to get there is with a veto-proof majority.  That's why I'm working with Republicans.  Got a better idea?

I opposed the FISA-gutting Protect America Act last August and supported the much-improved H.R. 3773, which did not include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.  I call on the White House to do more than share selected documents with a handful of Senators - how do we know what the White House is not providing?  In my view, the question of retroactive immunity cannot even be considered until Congress is fully informed about what happened and under what authority.

Harman's arguments are just weird.  The President is breaking the law, and the solution is to... change the law so that he's no longer breaking it?  I don't get it.  Either way, whether he breaks the law and Congress does nothing or whether he breaks the law and Congress excuses all his lawbreaking and gives him authority to do so, the law is pretty meaningless.  So who cares?

And the 'we need to see the document' document excuse is also weird.  The court is already going over whether the telecom companies were breaking the law.  That's what courts do.  Why can't Harman consider letting the structures we have for mediating the rule of law - ie. the courts - actually function? 

The Village is nuts.

Positive Steps on the FISA Fight

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:56

It's working.  Here's an article from The Hill a DC insider publication.

The Senate Intelligence panel has approved a bill that would establish new procedures for court warrants for foreign-intelligence surveillance on Americans, but some of those provisions did not go far enough to satisfy some liberal Democrats and civil liberties groups.

Most controversial, however, was the measure's inclusion of a provision that would grant retroactive immunity for telecommunications firms that participated in the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Although the Intelligence panel saw the internal White House documents on the NSA program before it voted on the bill, most freshmen are unlikely to see those papers. That puts them in a tough spot as they decide whether to support a Bush-backed provision to wipe away about 40 lawsuits accusing the companies of giving away private information to the government.

"I'm a little bit concerned  ... of fear-mongering and politics by the Bush administration and an enormous amount of confusion kicked up around this," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Whitehouse joined 12 of his colleagues in voting for the Intelligence panel's bill earlier this month. He signaled that there would likely be efforts to alter that language when the Judiciary Committee considers the bill in coming weeks.

Whitehouse is one of the people who voted for retroactive immunity in the Senate Intelligence committee, so it's good he's having second thoughts.  It looks like various freshmen understand that the Republicans are going to throw the terrorism card at them no matter what they do.

"Republicans are going to say we're weak on terror - that's their rhetoric, that's what they're going to say," said freshman Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who voted for the PAA and is planning on supporting the leading House bill.

Altmire is one of the more conservative House freshmen, a 'Bush Dog', so it's a positive sign that he's aware of the fearmongering going on and the strategic stupidity of knuckling under to it for political expediency.

I'd be impressed if Congress managed to hold firm on this.  I don't know if they will, but activism works.