Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
As for "retroactive prosecution": Is there such a thing? I think not. Investigation and detection of "illegal" activity is timeless insofar as prohibition of a behavior is codified. Even if that behavior is NOT codified, the default recourse to injury is litigation. Such is the dynamic of a social contract purportedly dedicated to jurisprudence and lawful arbitration.
One of the articles in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights covers that
Article 11.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

But you point out that this "telco immunity" affects civil litigation against the telecommunication companies, not possible criminal liability.

And on this note, I think constitutional protections are intended to protect citizens from the State, not from each other. It was the government that was in violation of the 4th amendment, not the telcos. The telcos may have been in violation of data protection laws if the US had any, or of their own privacy agreements entered into with their customers.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 04:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think constitutional protections are intended to protect citizens from the State, not from each other. It was the government that was in violation of the 4th amendment, not the telcos.

Protecting citizens from each other is the purpose of US Code (federal statutes) and states' criminal codes.

But if I were an atty and corporate counsel, I would indeed argue ;) that as a corporation is a "person" the state has abridged corp 4th Am. and due process "rights".

I'm not, and that complaint, XYZ Inc v. US, didn't get filed. AFAIK. (Search ACLU and epic.org, for example)

Besides 1st Am questions, blocked by evocation of federal "national security" perogatives, litigants have been unsuccessful demonstrating material harm, provoked by unreasonable search. That is the plaintiff, individual or corporate, must exhibit a loss which may be financial or corporal directly attributable to the undue process.

And what incentives are available to corporations to post revenue losses --as if consumer preference among suppliers existed and were actionable -- attributable to unreasonable US searches of its customers' transactions?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is federal statute governing seller unauthorized distribution of client service data, fines per instance. I don't have legal citations handy. So, really, the point of litigation and corp indemnification is not merely constitutional principles but cost avoidance. The FISA emendment wipes out existing recourse and telecom financial liability.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is an interesting summary of FISA, "Five Myths About the New Wiretapping Law" By Patrick Radden Keefe.

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.

This is another bit of face-saving window dressing, and its essence is best captured in a breathtaking remark from Sen. Bond: "I'm not here to say that the government is always right. But when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree ... that is something you need to do." That more or less sums it up--one part Nuremberg defense, the other part Nixon.



Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Jun 27th, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series