D'you think the irony in this bill is intended?

[Sunrazor]

Is it just me, or do the rest of you guys find this news item somewhat ironic:
>>Congressional Panel Approves Internet Bill
(Washington, DC) -- Legislation that would prohibit U.S. Internet companies from cooperating with authorities in China and other repressive regimes has received the backing of a key congressional panel. The House Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of a bill designed to stop companies from turning over personal information to governments that use them to suppress dissent. The bill would give individuals the right to sue companies in federal court if their information was improperly disclosed. Before it goes to the House, the bill needs approval from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
This is from Westwood One's Metro Source newswire; I can't find anything on AP, so if anyone else can, let me know.

[gotpasswords]

Gee... Where's the bill to stop AT&T from giving the NSA a direct connection to their backbone?

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/att_assisting_n.html
http://www.eff.org/cases/att

[Sunrazor]

Asswhutahmsayin'!

[Dunderman]

I'm feeling disturbingly thick. What is the irony?

[AskNott]

I'm feeling disturbingly thick. What is the irony?
We are officially protesting China's internet policies, including restricting access to parts of the web, and snooping on Chinese netizens.

Meanwhile, our own policies involve massive spying on all internet traffic, with full cooperation from the telecom companies, often without warrants. We can snoop, but you Chinese can't.

[Sunrazor]

I think Congress can't pass a "bill of attainder," that is, a bill aimed specifically at China (but I could be wrong about exactly what that means.) In any event, if the bill passes, could it be used to allow massive lawsuits against ... oh, I dunno, say, QWEST!?

[Freddy the Pig]

Meanwhile, our own policies involve massive spying on all internet traffic, with full cooperation from the telecom companies, often without warrants.Cite? The NSA database was a database of call records, not of Internet sites visited.
I think Congress can't pass a "bill of attainder," that is, a bill aimed specifically at China (but I could be wrong about exactly what that means.) In any event, if the bill passes, could it be used to allow massive lawsuits against ... oh, I dunno, say, QWEST!?A bill of attainder declares an individual to be guilty of a crime by law instead of by trial. A bill opening telecom companies to lawsuits for sharing information with the government of China would not be a bill of attainder. The bill at issue here, H.R. 275 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110zVZkr4:e24288:), applies to Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Tunisia, and Vietnam as "Internet Restricting Countries" and allows the President to designate additional such countries after the bill is enacted.

[gotpasswords]

Cite? The NSA database was a database of call records, not of Internet sites visited.
CITE:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/07/MNIST7NS9.DTL
He asked a technician there about the secret room on the 6th floor, and the technician told him it was connected to the Internet room a floor above. The technician, who was about to retire, handed him some wiring diagrams.

"That was my 'aha' moment," Klein said. "They're sending the entire Internet to the secret room."

The diagram showed splitters, glass prisms that split signals from each network into two identical copies. One copy fed into the secret room. The other proceeded to its destination, he said.

"This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style," he said. "The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T's customers but everybody's."

[AskNott]

I just heard, on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, a short interview with the whistle-blower. He said the entirety of US internet traffic is sent to the NSA. They sort by content, not by who sent or received it. In other words, when I mention jihad, car bombs, and Muktada, this post will be tagged at the NSA. I'm just a boring old retiree, and not a criminal, but they're monitoring my stuff. All my broker statements, bank info, personal e-mail, and political opinions are being screened. Yours, too. It's unconstitutional, an unreasonable search.

The show's still going on, so the links aren't up yet. After a few hours, look at www.npr.org

Nixon was on the verge of being impeached for wiretapping his political enemies when he resigned.

[An Arky]

I think everyone with email should set up a filter that forwards all spam emails to the NSA and include the signature "suck on this, spooks!"

D!cks.

[Captain Amazing]

I think Congress can't pass a "bill of attainder," that is, a bill aimed specifically at China (but I could be wrong about exactly what that means.)

A bill of attainder is a bill punishing an individual for a crime. Specifically, it's a bill putting someone to death. A bill punishing someone with a penalty less than death is a "bill of pains and penalties". It wouldn't apply in this case.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[jayjay]

I think Congress can't pass a "bill of attainder," that is, a bill aimed specifically at China (but I could be wrong about exactly what that means.) In any event, if the bill passes, could it be used to allow massive lawsuits against ... oh, I dunno, say, QWEST!?

Why? QWEST was the one telecomm that held out on giving their records to the govt. and got punished with denial of contracts for it.

[BrainGlutton]

We are officially protesting China's internet policies, including restricting access to parts of the web, and snooping on Chinese netizens.

Meanwhile, our own policies involve massive spying on all internet traffic, with full cooperation from the telecom companies, often without warrants. We can snoop, but you Chinese can't.

Perfectly true. OTOH, irony as such is not unconstitutional and there is nothing to prevent Congress or the Administration from taking arguably inconsistent positions on different matters, so long as there is no practical or legal inconsistency in their enforcement.