wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] hjs from 11211 November 08, 2007 - 11:27AM

  will mrs clinton vote in favor of a law to allow corporations to listen to american citizens and report to big brother??

  
  
• [2] cs from Lower East Side November 08, 2007 - 11:29AM

  The juxtaposition of the proposed immunity here, vis-a-vis the public shaming of Yahoo! executives (because they allowed the Chinese government to look at internet records) earlier this week, is startling. How can we seriously condemn corporate complicity in civil liberties abuses abroad, when we encourage it at home?

  
  
• [3] George N. Wells, CPIM from Dover, NJ USA November 08, 2007 - 11:34AM

  Brian!

  The government cannot have it "both ways." When the government launches a "sting" that gets a person or company to violate the law they cannot seek immunity or plead lack of knowledge of the law. Now the government, and the telecom companies, want immunity for the same practice.

  Also, Congress, back in 2001, said a resounding "NO" to the 43rd Administration regarding the Total Information Awareness program that was floated. This intrusion into our civil liberties is just another end-run around a Congressional no.

  
  
• [4] eCAHNomics November 08, 2007 - 11:44AM

  Your Dow-Jones guy sounds like he's already been bought by Murdoch.

  The chart I saw on telecom donations to Rockefeller was next to no contributions until retroactive immunity came up. I'll look for the link.

  
  
• [5] J.C. from Minneapolis November 08, 2007 - 11:46AM

  I only caught half of this story, unfortunately, so this point might not have come up via a caller, but I would like to make one point to anyone out there who hears this story and might be thinking: "So what if the government is reading my email and recording my phone calls. I've got nothing to hide?"

  Really? By that reasoning, should we put a camera in everyone's home so the government can see what we're doing? C'mon, you said you had nothing to hide.

  There should be more outrage over this. If the government needs to read email or tap a phone, all it has to do is get a warrant, which is not a problem as long as the gov't has a reason to suspect you. There's just no reason for invading people's privacy w/o a warrant.

  And to cs: VERY good comment on the Yahoo! case. :)

  
  
• [6] eCAHNomics November 08, 2007 - 11:49AM

  Here's the link for telecom comtributions to Rockefeller. Any reporter who has not looked at this chart, yet opines on this subject, is stealing his salary.

  http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/19/you-get-what-you-pay-for/