Might change phone providers but the problem, as I see it, is that so many of the telephone providers use AT&T switches at some point. You'd practically have to go build your own infrastructure around the country to avoid AT&T and then Bush and his Jackboot Thugs would come looking for you to help them break the law. Might still do it anyway if we find another provider that will offer service and isn't one of the crooks in cahoots with Bush. (I don't even know if there ARE any that weren't breaking the law, plus there have been mergers since this whole spying thing started).
So. AT&T's court case against them, without a warrant, breaking the law and giving out customer records for Bush's at-least-then-illegal surveillance programs, is coming up on August 15. I wonder if the judge will grant an extension while the Bush adminsitration tries to strongarm a complicit Congress into granting the telecom companies immunity from getting sued.
In the wake of Congress approving a dramatic expansion of U.S. warrantless wiretapping powers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the future of two critical lawsuits over illegal surveillance of Americans. The hearing is set for August 15, at 2 p.m. in San Francisco.
The government is fighting to get the cases thrown out of court, contending that the litigation jeopardizes state secrets. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is representing the plaintiffs in Hepting v. AT&T, which accuses the telecom giant of collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in illegal electronic surveillance of millions of AT&T's customers. The court will also hear the arguments on the future of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush, a case alleging that the government illegally wiretapped calls between the charity and its lawyers.
"At issue here is whether the courts have any meaningful role to play in protecting Americans' privacy from Executive branch abuses of its surveillance powers," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "If the claim of 'state secrets' is allowed to shut down litigation, then the courts will never be able to exercise their Constitutional duty to hold the White House accountable for illegal and even unconstitutional abuses of power."
AT&T used to think the very conduct they engage in now was wrong.
Even in the 1920s, AT&T clearly recognized that surveillance of the modern telecommunications system could be far more invasive than the Colonial era privacy violations that inspired the Bill of Rights.
"The telephone has become part and parcel of the social and business intercourse of the people of the United States, and this telephone system offers a means of espionage to which general warrants and writs of assistance were the puniest instruments of tyranny and oppression."
"Writs of assistance" were used by King George II and III to carry out wide-ranging searches of anyone, anywhere, and anytime regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime. These "hated writs" spurred colonists toward revolution and directly motivated James Madison's crafting of the Fourth Amendment.
Today, the president has essentially updated this page from King George's playbook. EFF's lawsuit against AT&T presents uncontested evidence that, since at least 2001, the telco giant has given the National Security Agency unfettered backdoor access to its customers' Internet and phone communications as well as realtime access to calling records.
If AT&T in 1928 thought that wiretapping made the "hated writs" look puny, how can it now cooperate with the president's massive and illegal spying program?
AT&T decided to CENSOR a Pearl Jam concert that was being webcast. Why? Because there was bad language? No. Because they didn't like the lyrics criticizing George Bush. Compare on this video snip that shows AT&T's censored version versus what SHOULD have been heard.
Indeed. AT&T routinely rails against Net Neutrality as a
