3 ms·

"Available to WSJ.com Subscribers"

• Mithrandir 13y ago
  http://archive.is/hPGfu http://archive.is/hPGfu
• D9u 13y ago
  Too bad I'm such a cheapskate, as I refuse to pay for such content, but viewing the source gives some idea of what it's about. I find it ludicrous that the spies won't gather data from foreign owned TelComs when it's been common knowledge that all foreign communications in & out of the USA have been under scrutiny for years now. http://aapd0418.com/2013/06/13/bush-lets-u-s-spy-on-callers-without-courts/ http://aapd0418.com/2013/06/13/bush-lets-u-s-spy-on-callers-... http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Timeline-of-revelations-about-US-domestic-spying-4588457.php http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Timeline-of-revel... Doesn't anyone remember the SCOTUS granting immunity to Verizon et al for their participation in the unconstitutional domestic surveillance program? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-telecom-immunity-ruling-idUSTRE7BS0Y720111229 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-telecom-immunit...
  • DannyBee 13y ago
    SCOTUS didn't grant immunity. They essentially held there was a valid state secrets privilege claim by the government, and thus, the plaintiff would not be able to actually prove their case. This is very different. Now, the decision was still bullshit, but for a very different reason :)
    • D9u 13y ago
      Ah, my bad for parroting headlines. Whatever happened, it's a convoluted mess better suited to Communist East Germany. Thanks for the clarification.