http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php All comments for Wiretapping Immunity (Again) en-us 2009 SFist_Brock Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:28:33 -0800 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss brochtrup@gmail.com brochtrup@gmail.com 60 http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php#comment-1233859 http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php#comment-1233859 Comments Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:22:37 -0800 <p>DiFi really sucks, and if she isn't successful maintaining her preference for telco immunity for illegal (ish? I agree with hilarie) acts, she can throw her hat into the campaign to the government be substituted as the defendant in the cases. The administration is shitting gold Twinkies over this and DiFi for some reason is getting their back on it. Who are her constituents?</p> http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php#comment-1233670 http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php#comment-1233670 Comments Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:08:51 -0800 <p> Illegal-ish? What? Maybe explain where you find a sliver of doubt about that? Because it's pretty clear that the Senate, the President, and the telecom industry don't have much. Hence, um, immunity. Right?</p> http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php#comment-1233480 http://sfist.com/2007/11/09/image_eff_the_s.php#comment-1233480 Comments Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:48:19 -0800 <p>DiFi is just so disappointing in standing up for the constitution. She votes to confirm Mukasey and now defends the mega corps for aiding and abetting the Bush administration. </p>