

T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless Shielded from NSA Sweep  - jdp23
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578543800240266368.html

======
jdp23
TechCrunch took this article, excerpted it badly, and gave it a misleading
headline --
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5882123](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5882123)

------
gasull
"Available to WSJ.com Subscribers"

~~~
D9u
Too bad I'm such a cheapskate, as I refuse to pay for such content, but
viewing the source gives some idea of what it's about.

I find it ludicrous that the spies won't gather data from foreign owned
TelComs when it's been common knowledge that all foreign communications in &
out of the USA have been under scrutiny for years now.

[http://aapd0418.com/2013/06/13/bush-lets-u-s-spy-on-
callers-...](http://aapd0418.com/2013/06/13/bush-lets-u-s-spy-on-callers-
without-courts/)

[http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Timeline-of-
revel...](http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Timeline-of-revelations-
about-US-domestic-spying-4588457.php)

Doesn't anyone remember the SCOTUS granting immunity to Verizon et al for
their participation in the unconstitutional domestic surveillance program?

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-telecom-
immunit...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/us-telecom-immunity-
ruling-idUSTRE7BS0Y720111229)

~~~
DannyBee
SCOTUS didn't grant immunity. They essentially held there was a valid state
secrets privilege claim by the government, and thus, the plaintiff would not
be able to actually prove their case.

This is very different.

Now, the decision was still bullshit, but for a very different reason :)

~~~
D9u
Ah, my bad for parroting headlines.

Whatever happened, it's a convoluted mess better suited to Communist East
Germany.

Thanks for the clarification.

