subject. The telecoms are regulated by the feds. The feds ask them to do something. In a regulated industry you generally do what your regulator tells you to. The one telecom that resists (Qwest) loses hundreds of millions in government contracts and gets prosecuted for securities violations. Are the feds at fault or the telecoms? BTW, I hate the telecoms.

who was opposed to the Powell regulation of telecoms. But he may not be your hero.

(this was supposed to go to Mark)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18212588/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Panel to See Papers on Agency’s Eavesdropping

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — The White House on Thursday offered to share secret documents on the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program with the Senate Judiciary Committee, a step toward possible compromise on eavesdropping legislation.

Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel, offered to show the documents to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the committee’s chairman; Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the committee; and staff members with the necessary security clearances, said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman.

Mr. Fratto said that if Mr. Leahy and Mr. Specter so wished, other committee members would be granted clearances for the N.S.A. program and permitted to see the documents. A spokeswoman for Mr. Leahy, Erica Chabot, said he would make sure the entire committee had access.

Only Senate Intelligence Committee members and their staffs have seen the documents. Last week, the committee approved a bill that would step up court oversight of N.S.A. eavesdropping while granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies. The companies face class-action lawsuits for giving the agency access to customers’ phone calls and e-mail messages.

On Tuesday, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, urged the White House to allow all Congressional committees with oversight responsibilities access to the N.S.A. documents.

Neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the House Judiciary Committee has been shown the documents. Mr. Fratto noted that a bill pending in the House contained no provision for immunity from lawsuits and suggested that unless that changed, the House committees would not see the documents.
.
“If the committees say they have no interest in legislating on the issue of liability protection, we have no reason to accommodate them,” he said.

Mr. Fratto said the administration was generally pleased with the Senate bill, though it opposes its six-year sunset provision and is seeking changes in the language of a provision that would require court warrants for eavesdropping on Americans traveling overseas. “Over all, it’s a pretty good start,” he said.

The security agency’s program to eavesdrop without warrants on international communications of Americans and others in the United States suspected of links to Al Qaeda started with extraordinary secrecy after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Congress has fought for more information on the program for several years.

The documents at issue include orders signed by President Bush every 45 days to reauthorize the surveillance and legal opinions prepared by the Justice Department to justify the program.

Two Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, voted against the Senate bill in committee. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, has vowed to fight any legislation that grants immunity to the telecommunications companies.

here.

Looks like he's getting a little disturbed.

I did inhale.

Senate Judiciary Leaders Resist Leniency for Surveillance

Washington Post, By Ellen Nakashima, November 1

In a blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat and Republican expressed reluctance yesterday to granting blanket immunity to telecommunications carriers sued for assisting the government's warrantless surveillance program.

Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and the ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), had said that before even considering such a proposal, they would need to see the legal documents underpinning the program, which began after Sept. 11, 2001, and were put under court oversight in January.

On Tuesday, the committee was given access to some of the documents. But Leahy said yesterday that he had a "grave concern" about blanket immunity, saying that "it seems to grant . . . amnesty for telecommunications carriers for warrantless surveillance activities."

The activities seem to be "in violation of the privacy rights of Americans" and of federal domestic surveillance law, he said, noting that he is still "carefully considering" what is in the documents.

[...]

Immunity "is designed to shield this administration from accountability for conducting surveillance outside the law," Leahy said. Dismissing the lawsuits would eliminate "perhaps the only avenue" for "an honest assessment" of the legality of the warrantless surveillance program, he said.

Specter agreed that the "courts ought not to be closed" to such lawsuits. "If, at this late date, the Congress bails out whatever was done before -- and we can't even discuss what has been done -- that is just an open invitation for this kind of conduct in the future," he said.