said by Wikipedia :

Jeffrey Steven White (born September 2, 1945) is a United States federal judge serving on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

...

Federal judicial service

On July 25, 2002, White was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California vacated by Charles A. Legge. White was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 14, 2002, and received commission on November 15, 2002.

Global Warming ruling

In 2005, White allowed environment groups and four municipalities to go forward with a lawsuit against federal agencies. The basis for the lawsuit was a claim that the federal government is contributing to global warming by funding various overseas projects.

Wikileaks ruling

In February 2008, White shut down the ISP provider for the American mirror of the Website WikiLeaks. The basis for this action was a claim by the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. On February 18, 2008, White approved an agreement between Dynadot and Baer (an injunction based on stipulation); this action garnered news coverage around the world.

This order was widely criticized as both improper (prior restraint is generally prohibited by the First Amendment) and ineffective (Wikileaks' web servers are in Sweden, and numerous mirrors exist).

White vacated the injunction on February 29, 2008, citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction. Wikileaks was thus able to bring its site online again. The bank dropped the case on March 5, 2008. The judge also denied the bank's request for an order prohibiting the website's publication.

The Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, commented:

"It's not very often a federal judge does a 180 degree turn in a case and dissolves an order. But we're very pleased the judge recognized the constitutional implications in this prior restraint."

said by Rob :

Where is the transparency that this administration promised us?

said by nasadude :

my, isn't that interesting...a judge that decides cases on facts instead of ideology.
I can't quite figure out if you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, Noah Vail, but I'm guessing the latter.

said by PolarBear :

Indeed. Why are they still trying to cover up the mistakes that the last administration made?

said by chronoss2009 :

It will show how both the Republicans and the Democrats BOTH SCREWED our people and how treasonous all their control is.

said by Noah Vail :

Why has O'Bama chosen to tightly align himself with the Bush administration; on this particular program?

said by Simba7 :

All Telephone Companies are owned by the U.S. Government?

That kinda explains alot.

said by amigo_boy :

Maybe after his election he was made privy to information about the good it has done.

Or, we're talking about positions of office. When one is in a legislative office, they're expected to conduct themselves in accord with the interests of that office. When they change to a different office (executive), the interests of that office change.

That's the basis of balances of power. The three branches of government aren't supposed to march in lockstep. They're supposed to have competing interests.

It doesn't surprise me that Obama switched to protecting the interests of the Executive branch in conducting surveillance.

Mark

said by Noah Vail :

On the campaign trail, the topic of the Patriot Act impinging on the liberty of citizens appeared in nearly every speech. O'Bama seemed to be dead set against treating citizens in that manner.

said by amigo_boy :

They're so regulated, it seems like a matter of semantics to say they're not "owned."

Consider banks. You can't open one without the blessing of the Treasury Dept. You can't open one without paying fees for FDIC deposit insurance.

At some point, it seems like a minor formality that the bank (or telco) president is paid through private channels (boards of directors, compensation committees) instead of directly from the government.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

Maybe you misinterpreted his opposition. He voted against so-called immunity until it was amended. Mark

said by Noah Vail :

If missing the February vote on the FISA bill

said by Noah Vail :

Progressing down the road to a Soviet Russia or a North Korea isn't the same as having arrived there.

said by amigo_boy :

I was referring to how he voted FOR the 2006 Patriot Act, 03/02/2006. A few months after voting against it.

said by amigo_boy :

The same thing for so-called telco immunity. He voted a few times to strike so-called immunity. Then voted for the entire FISA bill containing immunity....It was just compromise. Mark

said by Noah Vail :

If missing the February vote on the FISA bill
is how O'Bama defined his opposition to it,
it would explain his post-election actions
with regard to promises of earmark reform and open records.

said by Noah Vail :

These are the major civil liberty votes, that occurred when the possibility of becoming POTS seemed strongest.

said by amigo_boy :

At what point would you say banks and telcos aren't owned? Mark

said by Noah Vail :

At the point where restriction hasn't yet become dictation.

said by amigo_boy :

BTW: Check out Senator (and former Presidential nominee) McCain's voting record. He has far more "NV" (not voting) than Obama for the same period. (188 votes versus 164).Mark

said by Noah Vail :

No defense from me. They're paid to make choices. I don't find compulsive avoidance to be a strength.

said by amigo_boy :

That's nebulous enough. At what point would that be?Mark

said by Noah Vail :

It involves being able to define things like strength and weakness.

said by amigo_boy :

Which goes against the belief that he changed after becoming President.

He may have ran to the Left during the primary. That's common for all primaries (and, similarly, for Rs to run to the Right during the primary).

BTW: Our liberties depend upon regulation. A perfect libertarian world would degrade into anti-liberty conditions.

What many people overlook when considering increases in government power is how our own individual power has increased as well. Imagine how the poor schmuck in 1900 would *die* to have the medical, communication, transportation and financial advances we have today. Sit down toilets? Holy cow!

All those things empower us as individuals. And, they lead to social challenges, requiring greater regulation, oversight, etc. The regulation can't be taken out of context of the improvements that led to challenges requiring regulation. (Well, not unless you're a libertarian... wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.).

Mark

said by Noah Vail :

I missed your answer. O'Bama's civil rights vote indicate what kind of character?

said by amigo_boy :

Back to the original question: at what level of regulation would a telco (or bank) not be owned? The "good old days?"Mark

said by Noah Vail :

Whether it's one individual or a collection (like a business); I believe this principle applies the same.

said by amigo_boy :

For example, if a bank or telco can't even come into existence without the blessing of regulatory agencies, is its "core intact?"Mark

said by Noah Vail :

If the regulatory agencies design what the bank will be from the ground up, it's their bank - an extension of themselves. It never had a chance to be it's own entity and will always be beholden to it's masters.

said by chronoss2009 :

it will show how both republicans and democrats BOTH SCREWED your people and how treasonous all there control is.

said by amigo_boy :

Do you believe that's what's happening now when (for this example) banks can't come into existence without the blessing of the agency, are required to maintain certain amounts of capital reserves, pay fees to the government to insure deposits, and prohibited from issuing their own currencies (after the debacles of the 1800s)?

How many of these things cause a bank to "never have a chance to be its own entity?" All of them? One of them? None?

Mark

said by Noah Vail :

None of those things is a government agency designing and constructing a bank to to serve it.

said by amigo_boy :

When a bank meets Treasury requirements before coming into existence, or pays fees to the government to exclusively insure deposits, or agrees not to issue its own currency.... who is it serving? Mark

said by Noah Vail :

Most likely is that it is serving no one.