4 ms·
What would you propose then? Obviously someone needs to fight the law enforcement agents making these requests; we can't just tell the FBI "you just have to fol
by AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
What would you propose then? Obviously someone needs to fight the law enforcement agents making these requests; we can't just tell the FBI "you just have to follow the law exactly as it's written, you can't challenge anything" because that would severely tie its wrists.
I do agree it's not quite fair to put defense costs on the company/individual that needs to fight it, but the alternative I can think of is a public defender type system that I don't think many people would be happy with for corporations.
- Zigurd 11y ago> "you just have to follow the law exactly as it's written, you can't challenge anything" Isn't that what we expect from all people and institutions? moreover, we expect the people to be in control of "challenges" to the laws, and the laws themselves. Much of what's wrong with government comes from government creating self-serving laws.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y agoLaws are rigid and don't keep up with the changing times. You might argue that that's the government's fault for not passing new laws, and that's a fair point. However, the judicial has set a precedent over the past 200 years or so of interpreting laws to fit with changing circumstances. Given that's the case, it's hard to blame the FBI for taking advantage of that. The laws are what the courts interpret them to be; no more and no less. Like it or not, strict interpretation is a fantasy and has been since the late 1700s.