dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
275
share rss forum feed
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

False narrative

The narrative that this is immunity from "breaking the law" is false. The immunity granted was for civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. The bill specifically did NOT grant any immunity for criminal actions, i.e. breaking the law. Try reading it and you'll see.

The reason this immunity was granted by Congress and signed by the President was exactly because the tactic of the ACLU and EFF is to hammer those companies they consider "lawbreakers" with civil suit after civil suit. Death by 1000 lawyers is their strategy, even though they have succeeded with precisely zero of those suits.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that filing civil suits, even though they must know at some level they will not succeed, is their strategy. They intend to intimidate and harass these companies into not cooperating with legal requests from the government, causing them to spend significant resources defending themselves.

Given that, it makes a lot of sense for Congress and the President to pass this immunity law. Government, in general, cannot run counterterrorism plans if they are open to lawsuits. And, since you can't sue the Government over this sort of thing, and since the companies they depend on to help them can, they have to put those companies under this umbrella too.

The other part of the EFF/ACLU's strategy is to spin hyperbolic positions on the Internet, and bluster their way forward, in hopes of putting public pressure on these companies among the gullible and the conspiracy-theory minded. There's really nothing that should be done about, it's free speech, and one can only hope that people are smart enough critical thinkers to see through all that.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

Re: False narrative

Well, you're absolutely right, it's for civil cases... but that effectively is total immunity. I've made this point before....

... The only tool a citizen or groups like the EFF or ACLU have *are* civil lawsuits. Why?

... because for a criminal complaint, it's up to the *Government* to begin the legal procedure, filing charges, and bringing a case against the defendant. A citizen cannot create a criminal prosecution, all they can do if file a complaint and *hope* the Government acts on their complaint with a investigation and then bringing charges and arrests and a trial....
.... and here's the rub. When the CRIME is on the behest of the Government, with their full backing and support, you honestly think that they will turn around and charge their partners in crime, and thereby curtail their own operation. NO. Not a chance....

So by granting immunity from civil suits, that ends any method any citizen has for rule of law or justice. There is no valid legal recourse now to curtail the behavior.

The only option that citizens would have at this point is to vote out the entire Government and replace it with individuals who WOULD go after the criminals..... which brings us to the two party system where both parties are in bed with the criminals.

Great. So, what's left? When there are no legal means of recourse left, all that's left to correct injustice is the illegal methods.... you know.... insurrection, rioting, violence, popular uprisings and revolution.... you know... all that stuff that would get a citizen declared a .... terrorist. (and summarily executed, these days.)

... which brings us back to the reason they need to make sure they monitor the citizens 24/7.... to make sure they stop said terrorists.

Great, eh?

No good will come of this.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

airwavz
Always the green wire

join:2011-09-11
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1

Re: False narrative

KrK, I don't always agree with your views, but I had to take the time to say That's The Most Brilliant Summary Of This Whole Issue - and The America We Live In Today - That I Have Ever Read!

Thank you for stating so eloquently what SHOULD be front page news and shouted from every mountaintop, so just maybe Americans would wake up and see reality! (But of course that won't happen, because the media has made 'pop culture' the news of the day, and important issues are "swept away")
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
so you've pre-decided that the government doing counterterrorism activities against clear threats (cf. the multiple successful in-country terror attacks including and since 9/11) is already illegal? Even though such activities have been done throughout the history of the USA when there was a domestic threat? Why? Because it's now the magical Internet rather than phone calls, telegrams, etc.?

in the face of exactly zero successful lawsuits? And the backing of the duly elected Congress and President across multiple seatings of Congress and multiple elected Presidents? And the obvious non-support of the general public for your issues?

Not to mention the fact that there is no demonstrable harm. Even the ACLU/EFF can't find a plaintiff who can show they were harmed, so they are left with vague Constitutional complaints all of which have been rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court (see today's news). They are left with only "death by 1000 lawyers".

So you really think that the Government establishing an alternate system (the FISA court) with real judges and a real process, albeit in secret, for adjudicating warrants for counterterrorism purposes is worth violent revolution?

I just can't reconcile your position with reality.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Re: False narrative

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Not to mention the fact that there is no demonstrable harm. Even the ACLU/EFF can't find a plaintiff who can show they were harmed, so they are left with vague Constitutional complaints all of which have been rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court (see today's news).

So as long as I don't cause you any actual "harm", you would be perfectly fine with me reading all of your email and listening to all your phone calls? How about your conversations with your wife/girlfirend/husband/boyfriend? Can I listen to those as well? How about putting cameras in your home so that I can watch you 24/7, would that be OK? After all, if you're not doing anything illegal, there's no harm to you, right?

So, what's your address, and what's the best time for me to come over and install the surveillance gear?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: False narrative

You are not a government approved counterterrorism effort, approved by a FISA court. Invalid analogy.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
I'm sorry but monitoring all the phone conversations and data traffic in the USA is not "Activities against clear threats."

Wiretaps on suspects, linked to terrorism? Understandable.

Mass monitoring every person in the USA? No way... and it was illegal! That's why they had to grant the immunity!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: False narrative

no response to my logical analysis of what is "illegal", just simple repeating the assertion "It is illegal!"

Not possible to discuss something with someone who won't even acknowledge the other person's points, but just continues to assert their POV with no substantiation.

also no response to my pointing out that the immunity section of the law specifically does NOT grant immunity for illegal actions.

Reminds me of the scene in "Spinal Tap" where the band member dismisses the reasoned logical argument of the documentary maker about the loudness setting on his amps by simply saying:

"These go to 11!"

I guess we just cut to the next scene and leave it there. Denial is one way to deal with cognitive dissonance, I guess.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: False narrative

You should read your own words. It was illegal.... why do you think they needed the immunity? Immunity from lawsuits over breaking the law.... and you keep insisting it wasn't illegal. Fine, make your case.... or as you said, it's impossible to argue with someone who won't acknowledge the facts.... such as... it was illegal.

You are the one dismissing logic. As you say, Denial is one way to deal with cognitive dissonance, I guess. Nice trolling.... False narrative, indeed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: False narrative

You are making even less sense than before, and also resorting to name calling. Either show me something or admit you can't.

First, there is no such thing as "lawsuits over breaking the law". Your even saying that demonstrates you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal actions.

And, once again, "the facts such as it was illegal" has nothing to back it up except your opinion, and flies in the face of the actual facts, that those actions have been found legal by all 3 branches of the government, each executing its Constitutional role.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: False narrative

I have to correct what I said above. There apparently ARE "lawsuits over the government breaking the law", and Jewel v AT&T is exactly that. I guess this just proves the adage that you can sue anyone for anything anytime.

This lawsuit, I think, will die a rightful death on Nov 2 (see thread called "big stink about nothing". Yes, there will be appeals, but they will not succeed, IMO.

So maybe I should say "you can sue the government for breaking the law, but you won't succeed."

For more see here.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
said by MyDogHsFleas:

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that filing civil suits, even though they must know at some level they will not succeed, is their strategy. They intend to intimidate and harass these companies into not cooperating with legal requests from the government, causing them to spend significant resources defending themselves.

The requests weren't legal. That's the point!

The government got caught doing something illegal, and then passed a law retroactively making it legal.

It's like the NSA going to your bank and telling them to hand over everyone's money, which is stealing, and then the government passes a law saying that they're allowed to do this.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: False narrative

Um, no, Rekrul. You completely missed everything I said.

It is your opinion that the FISA court system to approve warrants for counterterrorism, enacted by the Legislative branch, signed and put into action by the Executive branch, and found Constitutional by the Judicial branch, should be illegal.

However, since it was passed, signed, and found to be Constitutional, it is by definition legal. So it is completely invalid for you to say it is illegal.

Furthermore, you missed where I said that the immunity portion of the legislation has nothing to do with illegal acts, in fact it specifically exempts companies from immunity for illegal acts. It has only to do with immunity from civil suits against those companies for complying with legal requests from the government. Again, legal by definition.

Look, it's fine for you to have opinions, but don't pretend something is something it isn't. Don't fall for the false narrative. Work with reality.

drew
Radiant
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6

Re: False narrative

said by MyDogHsFleas:

Don't fall for the false narrative. Work with reality.

You should heed your own words, for whatever that's worth.

The reality is that what they did was illegal and is now no longer illegal because of the legislation they enacted.

The whole system from top to bottom is corrupt.

I'm not a giant privacy advocate like a lot of folks, but even I can see the absurdity of what happened.
--
flickr | 'Cause I've been waiting, all my life just waiting
For you to shine, shine your light on me