FISA modifications passed House

[brian0918]

The House has just passed FISA modifications granting immunity to telecoms for wiretapping. Here is the relevant section of the bill:

Section 802(a) provides:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . .

(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

- (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was

- o (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and

- o (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

- ( the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was

- o (i) authorized by the President; and

- o (ii) determined to be lawful.

What is everyone's take on this change, and the effects it will have? I especially like how "authorized by the president" and "determined to be lawful" are in separate entries, implying that these two scenarios are mutually exclusive.

Edited June 20, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

It seems right to me, in that I don't think busineses should be sued for following lawful government orders.

[brian0918]

It seems right to me, in that I don't think busineses should be sued for following lawful government orders.

Note that it need not be lawful if it is authorized by the president.

So if the government orders a company to seize your property against your will, and you are not a criminal, who has violated your rights? The government, the company, or both? I would say both: the company violated your right to your property, and the government - by forcibly preventing you from suing the company - has supported that violation.

Edited June 20, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

Note that it need not be lawful if it is authorized by the president.

It says "and", not "or".

So if the government orders a company to seize your property against your will, and you are not a criminal, who has violated your rights?

The government. Similarly, if a thief orders you to hand over your wife's purse, who has violated her rights, the thief or you? The thief has. Edited June 20, 2008 by DavidOdden

[brian0918]

It says "and", not "or".The government. Similarly, if a thief orders you to hand over your wife's purse, who has violated her rights, the thief or you? The thief has.

So you're saying that this bill is alright, but that what can come of it is not necessarily alright. Don't you think, though, that this bill will help pave the way for further rights violations, and therefore although it is innocent in itself, is not a step in the right direction?

Edited June 20, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

So you're saying that this bill is alright, but that what can come of it is not necessarily alright.

I don't know what you mean by "come of it". I can't forsee any negative consequences. In what way would this increase the potential for government abuse of power?

[brian0918]

I don't know what you mean by "come of it". I can't forsee any negative consequences. In what way would this increase the potential for government abuse of power?

Companies will be less likely to resist accepting the government's requests if they know they are safe, and may even help suggest new routes to take. I see this as a partial merger between the government and business, or at least an endorsement for such a merger. You really don't see any blowback?

Edited June 20, 2008 by brian0918

[Chops]

if they know they are safe

They may not be allowed to be sued for it, but customers are still free to choose their competitors, who might be more willing to resist.

But, like David pointed out, for this to apply, it needs to be lawful AND have the president's signature AND have happened between the years 2001 and 2007.

If you have a problem with wiretapping, then you need to fix the law that allows wiretapping, not attack a law designed to uphold another law, and protect citizens from following said law.

Cure the disease, not the symptom.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Chops

[DavidOdden]

You really don't see any blowback?

No, I really don't, since this addresses past acts. I'd like to see some evidence that fear of consumer lawsuits is sufficiently great that it overwhelms a companies fear of the almighty power of the government. If you want to prohibit wiretapping except by court order, then that's the law to get passed.