Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (371976)	2/25/2008 2:05:35 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576613

Who knows with these bills, they probably attached pork to it.

To: combjelly who wrote (371976)	2/25/2008 4:40:03 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576613

Nobody is refusing to do something over legality. The issue is lawsuits. Civil not criminal. Re. your question - already addressed: Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn't account for new targets, which may require new kinds of telecom cooperation and thus a new court order. Mr. Reyes can make all the assertions he wants about immunity, but they are no defense against a lawsuit. For that matter, without a statute in place, even a renewed order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is likely to be challenged as illegitimate. A telecom CEO who cooperates without a court order is all but guaranteed to get not merely a wiretap lawsuit, but also a shareholder suit for putting the company at legal risk. Message 24331169