RSS
FBI: Customers Might Sue If They Knew Companies Were Helping With Wiretaps
from the uh...-isn't-that-the-point? dept
It's really quite stunning to see how the government justifies its overreaching efforts into citizens' privacy. The latest example comes from the ACLU, which found a gem in the heavily redacted documents it retrieved via the Freedom of Information Act in seeking info about the warrantless wiretapping program. One bit of information they found has the FBI saying it thinks the public should not know about companies that are helping the feds with warrantless wiretapping because (*gasp*) people might sue about their rights being violated:
"Specifically, these businesses would be substantially harmed if their customers knew that they were furnishing information to the FBI. The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies' services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber info."Yes, that's the FBI saying that it shouldn't be forced to say who's violating their rights, because people might get upset that their rights are being violated and sue. And that's bad for business. This is a justification for secretly spying on people without a warrant? That people would get upset and sue? Once again, the feds seem to be arguing that the law should be whatever is most convenient for them, rather than about what most protects the rights of citizens against over-intrusive behavior by the government.
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
I have an idea...
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
I mean, puh-leeze! IF you're going to harm big business, you might at least do it more subtly, like making it impossible for competition to even remotely stand a chance!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice.
;-P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
paraphrasing - "If people knew these companies were helping us, the companies would sue the government to not have to provide this info."
So they also know the companies would challenge this in court - and likely win since they'd have big biz money behind them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
Clearly, that is what Ex Post Facto is for.
The constitution, suitable for framing or wiping your ass.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DURRR
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not durr
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kids, this is why you should proofread your comments before posting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jerb made me laugh though, which given the obscenity of this post was helpful. Thank You.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
its nice to know that once someone breaks out with the super-tard and posts, its there and cant be altered which often leads to many entertaining hours of watching them twist in the wind trying to explain and defend their comments.
the edit button would make all that a thing of the past...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dumb comment!
**EDIT May-11-11 6:56pm**
I meant to say "Really dumb comment!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No big surprise.
The spooks do whatever they d*** well please, and they do not care one bit about any such silly things as the Constitution or enacted laws.
I'm not sure what's worse; the government or the criminals; the line is fast blurring.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No big surprise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No big surprise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No big surprise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, if the people at the FBI had just a tiny bit of self-awareness and empathy, it might occur to them that if people would freak out and start lawsuits if they knew what the FBI were doing, maybe the FBI shouldn't be doing those things.
Of course, the fact that the FBI doesn't show any concern for the people they're supposed to be protecting is in itself one of the reasons people distrust them to the point where, as the FBI themselves said, any company known to be working with them gets abandoned and sued by their customers.
Between the FBI and the ICE, the US government seems to be doing its darndest to make the US a bad place to run a business. That's not going to help the economy, y'know.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For shame, FBI!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"..If They Knew Companies Were Helping With Wiretaps"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
National security Letters
It's high time we bankrupt them for our freedom from NSLs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immunity
No, Obama granted the telecoms immunity. One reason he doesn't get my vote next time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immunity
AFAIK, the president does not have this sort of authority.
In this case, as in most, congress passes a law, the president signs it and the courts attempt to sort it all out.
btw, Bush also approved of passing such legislation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Immunity
But on the subject of Obama and immunity: Bush asked Congress for retroactive immunity, Congress put it in a bill. Senator Obama said he would filibuster any bill with retroactive immunity, but when given the chance did not, and voted in favor of the bill.
Once President, his Attorney General successfully ended law suits, using the new law, because the Attorney General's role is to defend the laws passed by Congress. You decide.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immunity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How can you write about privacy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can you write about privacy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can you write about privacy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How can you write about privacy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How much of our constitution is gonna be trampled on before people get pissed?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Repressive Gov't
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment