4 ms·
Actual text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2383/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/238... Congre
by bluetwo 9y ago
Actual text of bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2383/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/238...
Congress finds the following:
(1) Timely access to electronic data held by communications-service providers is an essential component of government efforts to protect public safety and combat serious crime, including terrorism.
(2) Such efforts by the United States Government are being impeded by the inability to access data stored outside the United States that is in the custody, control, or possession of communications-service providers that are subject to jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) Foreign governments also increasingly seek access to electronic data held by communications-service providers in the United States for the purpose of combating serious crime.
(4) Communications-service providers face potential conflicting legal obligations when a foreign government orders production of electronic data that United States law may prohibit providers from disclosing.
(5) Foreign law may create similarly conflicting legal obligations when chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the “Stored Communications Act”), requires disclosure of electronic data that foreign law prohibits communications-service providers from disclosing.
(6) International agreements provide a mechanism for resolving these potential conflicting legal obligations where the United States and the relevant foreign government share a common commitment to the rule of law and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
- tptacek 9y agoWhy are you quoting the part of the law that doesn't have any legal force or effect?
- bluetwo 9y agoBecause it is a good overview of their intentions. Why is this a problem?
- mikecb 9y agoBecause Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)
- bluetwo 9y agoI disagree.
- non_sequitur 9y agoThis is actually incorrect. Courts including the Supreme Court will take into account "legislative intent" when interpreting a law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
- tptacek 9y agoYou just said the same thing he did, added a Wikipedia link, and called him incorrect. There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.
- Roboprog 9y agoI feel like I’m looking at the output of the legal equivalent of “git show” when I tried to read the senate document - first, the commit comment (which does nothing, but does describe intent and list the author), followed by diff style patch script. Anybody else get that feeling?
- tptacek 9y agoI think that's a very good analogy.
- Bartweiss 9y agoIt's not uncommon for the intent component of laws to be substantially different than the effects of the actual text. Sometimes because writing laws about complex topics like computer access is difficult, sometimes because the law has some effects Congress would rather not publicly announce. And since the text of the law takes precedence over this sort of statement in court, it doesn't necessarily offer any information as to what changes might actually happen. Notably, laws like this almost always end up applying far beyond their envisioned scope simply because the landscape changes so fast. The intent of the DMCA or CFAA is substantially irrelevant when major legal cases end up hanging on technicalities in their wording.