Immunity for Telecoms or National Security?

@Cmdr:

And that is exactly why I am saying it is just to grant them immunity from civil prosecution.  The US Government asked them to follow the law.  They followed the law.  Now the civilians want to sue them for easy money.

The President DID have approval from the judiciary to get the wire taps.  Whether or not the approval was appropriate or not is completely beside the point.  The point is that a judge signed the order, the wiretaps were established, and the telecomms followed the law.  Now, after the fact, you want to change the law and hold them liable for following the law at the time they followed the law.

President Bush may or may not, be trying to rewrite the law at this time.  And I’ll say the same things, any thing changed in the law cannot be used retroactively against anyone who followed the law at the time.  However, that does NOT negate the fact that the telecoms followed the laws and the trial lawyers wanna get their hands in their pockets despite this by playing on the fears of the masses.

If they did nothing wrong, then why do they need immunity?

The Patriot Act was not only wrong, it was unconstitutional.  There were no warrants, subpoenas, or anything legal in the matter.  It was requested and handed over without a fight.  Bad on Bush & co. for destroying our civil rights, bad on the company for giving in.  They all should pay.  End of story.

The Patriot Act may or may not be wrong.  However it WAS the law.

They need the protection because they followed THE LAW.  If I save your life by giving you CPR and they repeal the Good Samaritan laws, should you be allowed to sue me because your ribs hurt the next day?

That’s the SAME thing you are asking for here.  The LAW stipulated that the telecoms had to provide this information (and they did get judicial warrants, just not the exact moment the information was provided mind you) and now, AFTER THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW, you want to allow people to sue them.  Just the act of levvying a lawsuit can drive business and investors into bankruptcy.  Why?  They still have to pay court costs, they still have to hire attorneys, they still have to hire mediators, etc.  It’s expensive to defend yourself against frivolous and illegal lawsuits just as with legitamite ones.

Giving them protection against the pirates salvating at the thoughts of plunder is not only the ethical thing to do, but the only just thing to do.

And, for the record, how can something approved by Congress and Signed by the President and NOT vetoed by the Surpeme Court be unethical?  If we’re going to go down that road, campaign finance reform and a lot of other acts are unconstitutional too.

Actually the McDonald’s conviction was over turned on the first appeal.  Most real litigation like that where you have to wonder if the Judge took his meds the day he made his decision are over turned rather quickly.

This is just going to cause businesses to STOP following the law until the government attempts to shut them down.  You cannot punish companies for obeying the law and not expect a back lash.

@ncscswitch:

Following the law is an absolute defense in all civil cases.

The fact that the various litigation is proceeding against the telecoms is because the law was NOT followed when the Telecoms bowed to Administration pressure to open their records and/or allow for wiretaps without judicial order.

I don’t think the judges have heard the validation for the cases yet.  I think the President was trying to stop this before it even started.

With all hope, the judges WILL support the Telecoms and REQUIRE those filing these frivolous lawsuits to pay the legal bills of the telecoms to send a message that you cannot sue a company for following the law.

But I suspect the telecoms will get hit very hard financially defending themselves, be found not-guilty in the long run, but the damage will be done and companies throughout the land will cease following laws of this nation and may even move out of the nation to friendlier nations.

It’s better to protect them NOW then to rely on lawyers failing to shop for the right judge and getting one with half a brain left in his head.  IMHO.

And, don’t forget, contractors are legally REQUIRED to inform the government of any suspicious activity they witness under the Patriot Act.  When are all the contractors going to be sued for reporting what they saw in someone’s private home without a warrant?

How ridiculous would you like to get?  (BTW, I’ll remind you that was the PRIMARY reason I was against the Patriot Act from day one.  As a contractor I did not feel comfortable being legally responsible for not reporting what I saw in someone’s home if they did go out and do something illegal.  I was supposed to be there to do my job and leave, not snoop.)

Actually, the telecoms never broke the law.  They may freely give the Government, or anyone else, any information about you they want.  The Privacy Act does not apply.  In fact, as long as they can claim they did not profit from the information they gave the FBI/Homeland Security, they are completely immune.

I reference the case where consumers attempted to sue Jet Blue for giving away their information (including Social Security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, demographics like number of children, race, etc) to the FBI.  The judge ruled that yes, Jet Blue did give away personal information without permission, however, there was no law forbidding Jet Blue from freely giving away that information.  And, since the Federal Government did not take that information by force (they politely asked for it) they did NOT need a warrant to get the information.

So giving the Telecoms protection for giving away information for free (the same info they probably sell to private companies and individuals btw) is just stopping frivolous lawsuits and stop the waste of federal money through wasted time and expense for a case that cannot be won, due to precedent being set with the Jet Blue Case.

Remember, the Privacy Act does not apply to everything.  Only very specific industries in very specific circumstances with very specific information.  Everything else can be handed out like candy.  Furthermore, no where in the Constitution does it state that citizens have a right to privacy.  It’s implied, but not enforced nor expressly written.  You have a right to protection against illegal search and seizure, but you were not illegally searched, you gave the telecoms this information freely, and it was not seized, the telecoms gave it away.