Christopher Dodd

Senator Dodd gets Reid to postpone FISA vote until next year

Senator Dodd was successful in postponing until January a debate over whether telecommunications companies such as AT&T should be given retroactive immunity for aiding and abetting the Bush administration in their warrantless wiretapping efforts.

This from Wired.com :

The presidential candidate threatened to filibuster and hold the Senate floor if the Senate shot down his amendment to strip immunity from the bill. That threat moved Reid to postpone a vote on the bill, so that the Senate could take up war funding bills, a massive domestic spending bill and changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax before the winter break.

[...]

Dodd spent nearly 10 hours on the Senate floor Monday, assaulting the administration's secret warrantless wiretapping program and channeling Senator Frank Church, whose investigation in the 1970s of the nation's intelligence services clandestine led to Congressional limits on government spying.

The fight is obviously not over, but at least with this stay of constitutional execution, civil liberties activists (and ... ahem ... netizens) will be able to spread the word even louder to their neighbors about how their phone and cable companies are spying on them.

See more at The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

—

Lawrence Lessig