how-to block ads
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.
| |KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
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.
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
Re: False narrative
said by MyDogHsFleas: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?
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, what's your address, and what's the best time for me to come over and install the surveillance gear?
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.
Port Orchard, WA
Re: False narrative
said by MyDogHsFleas:You should heed your own words, for whatever that's worth.
Don't fall for the false narrative. Work with reality.
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