So the next question is, why aren't you people torching ATT kiosks for doing the same thing you're freaking out about here? Heh.

We ARE up in arms over ATT's illegal spying. We WANT them to go bankrupt because of HUGE settlement costs in their massive spying operation in violation of the law.

Many of us eschew ATT completely and choose superior companies that do NOT spy on its customers, and certainly not for the government. I would rather go without telephone service than be screwed by ATT and the other criminal telcos in on the illegal spying deal.

The whole point of NO IMMUNITY is to see to it that ALL those who violated the law (Bush, Cheney, the CIA, the FBI, ATT, etc) ALL face punishment in court. ATT is just the first idiot inside the door we seek to kick down.

You say Harry Reid is demonstrating that it is no longer government "for the people", but you must understand the main point. Corporations are people, too!

If the telcos DON'T get retroactive immunity how much money will it cost them? What are they willing to do and how much are they willing to spend to ensure it happens?

Put yourself in the shoes of the telco lobbyists. (Painful I know, but try it.)

What is their message to the senators?

I'm thinking something like, "Ignore these bloggers, they don't understand the issues." or more blatant, "How much money have bloggers historically given you? Do you really want to side with them? How many jobs do they create in your state? All our telco employees are taxpayers too and if we had to lay people off in your state because of a massive law suit..."

Put yourself in the shoes of the telco CFOs.

If they don't get retroactive immunity, does that mean that key people will be tied up with criminal proceedings for years? Will civil lawsuits impact the profit of the company? By how much?

Is the money the telcos are willing to spend on lobbyists and PR to get retroactive immunity an indication of how serious they are and how much they want this?

Do you think that the financial analysts who follow these stocks would be interested in this? If not, why not? Is it because it is not big enough of an impact on the companies?

To move this discussion into the financial space will give the media an excuse to do a different kind of story. This story is about the law and spying, but it's also about the money.

If I pick up any phone and call an 800 number, the owner of the 800 number has the right to take the number I called from and connect it with a name and address and mail me marketing items. This is perfectly legal and does not violate my rights. If I choose to pay to be on a telephone network, they have the right to analyze my calling data however they see fit, that is part of their business. If I choose to use their network, that's my decision and I accept these things as part of the deal. If I don't like it, I don't have to be on a telephone network. I don't have to use the infrastructure that is provided by others and exists to make my life more convenient if I don't want to. I am not gauranteed life, liberty, and secure phone records. I might expect this type of reaction if they were listening in or recording conversations, but Analyzing Call Data? What am I supposed to be frightened of, I'm going to get a visit from the FBI for calling grammy twice a week?

Recently all the candidates were in Nevada for the primaries. I e-mailed Obama's campaign requesting he comment on the stump in Nevada (Harry Reids state) that he opposed legislation giving telecoms immunity and amnesty. At the same time he could have highlighted Reids attempt to fast track the FISA bill. As far as I know he did neither. I don't think we can count on any candidates (with the exception of Edwards) to take action on this. I will vote on February 5th, it will not be for Hillary or Barack unless the do something about this.

What phone booths! I almost never see one...

...and now I'm wondering if that's because it's so much harder (or maybe less legal?) to gather data from them.

What do you think, Jim W?

(...and congratulations on your good health, btw!)

I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the congressional "leadership". The way they have sold out our country and constitution, is unforgivable. I've written Edwards, Hillary and Obama to fight against telco immunity. Now we will see if Hillary or Obama will actually take action. I'm not that hopeful considering their records but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

As for the purposely contrarian shooter, as why to be worried about gov't doing what AT&T has been doing. Well you see the gov't has powers that a private company does not. The gov't can arrest and imprison people. So using link analysis maybe I somehow get connected to a "terrorist". Maybe I called someone, who called someone, who talked to a terrorist. Bush says he can arrest and imprison anyone on his says so. So being remotely connected to a terrorist is all it takes to get imprisoned as one. Remember habeas corpus no longer applies in this country for people declared "enemy combatants". Of course shooter you probably aren't that stupid, so you knew all this already. But being the right-wing prick you are, you couldn't help from making an ass out of yourself.

Aren't you typically slaying conservatives for being so scared of terrorist attacks that they have to vote for a "daddy-figure" president who will protect them from the terrorist boogeymen? And aren't you now peeing in your pants because you need a "mommy-figure" to protect you from having your phone calls unjustly analyzed and linked to the terrorist boogeymen? Aren't these things more similar than they are different?