Big Brother Bush

On the 10th july 2008 George W. Bush approved a new surveillance bill. A bill that gives the telephone companies who helped the withe house wiretap americans -without warrants- a granted immunity. Immunity for helping the administration brake the current law. The bill also grants the US government to continue with this surveillance.

Quote from the BBC:

“Previous attempts to pass the bill – and allow the warrantless wiretap scheme to continue – had foundered on the issue of immunity for telecom firms.

Democrats had been reluctant to grant the firms immunity, saying the courts should first determine what the companies did.

President Bush – backed by Republicans in Congress – wanted to ensure that firms which had helped his administration would not be liable for prosecution.

The two sides reached a compromise, whereby telephone companies would not be automatically immune, but courts would be obliged to dismiss a suit against a firm if it was able to produce written certification that the White House had asked it to participate in the programme and had assured the firm it was legal”.

This is dangerous. One person in the administration said that “if the government tells you to do something, you should do it”. Even if they are asking you to brake the law? The wiretaps started after 9/11, when people would do anything to prevent a new attack. The telephone companies thought they were doing the right thing, but they were still braking the current law. 

Now they can also easedrop on outside of the US without a warrant. So how decides who to watch? As they don´t need a warrant, they don´t need any evidence to be able to wiretap anyone. The administration decides who, and can do so without showing any evidence that the person has done anything wrong, or has plans to. This is Big Brother at it´s worst. They can listen to everyone for no resoen at all.

Free speech it risk. Because anyone that apposes the current government can be a at risk of coming under surveillance. 

What is the pinot of having warrants is the government can overrule them? Lets say the police are investigating a murder, and want to go through suspects houses. That have to get a warrant to do so. They have to show evidence to a judge to be allowed to go through a house. They cannot just say i think that person may be the killer, they need some prof. So why can the US government be allowed to wiretap anyone they want, without prof.

Some people say that they don´t mind because they have nothing to hide. I would just like to say if you give someone vast amount of information, they are most likely to use it to help themselves.

Would you like allow someone to listening to your phone calls, se the internet pages you visit, read your e-mails? 

Your views?

Here are some links to news articles about this issue:

Bush approves surveillance bill

Bush signerte omstridt avlyttingslov

Bush fikk vedtatt avlyttingslov i Kongressen