3 ms·
> > What about all the other American companies doing business in China? > We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business fi
by derf_ 8y ago
> > What about all the other American companies doing business in China?
> We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Wouldn't that provide the greatest reduction in harm?
There's actually a name for laws that target one individual while ignoring others guilty of the same behavior, and that's a "bill of attainder" [0]. They're banned by the US Constitution and also every state constitution, which might give you some idea that there are pretty good reasons "why not" (namely, that they're ripe for abuse, they violate someone's right to due process, and can be used by the legislature to take on judicial or executive functions, violating the separation of powers).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
- darpa_escapee 8y agoThese standards don't only apply to Google, though. They can be applied to anyone, which makes your comparison bills of attainder seem kind of odd.
- hueving 8y agoWhat standards are you referring to? There are no US standards or laws against what Google is proposing.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoEthical standards.
- specialist 8y agoWhy would Google help another govt censor their own citizens? To curry favor, some kind of quid pro quo. Aka a bribe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
- chc 8y agoWhat's being suggested here isn't even kind of similar to a bill of attainder, not even if you really squint. This is like saying, "You can't prosecute me for theft before you prosecute this other thief, because that's a bill of attainder." No court would entertain that argument.
- hueving 8y agoThere is no law against what Google is doing. This is nothing like the theft argument.
- matthewrobertso 8y agoWhy would a law against what Google is doing be subject to bill of attainder? Wouldn't bill of attainder only apply if the law specifically mentioned Google?
- chc 8y agoBut the comment I responded to didn't say that, so I don't know why you'd expect the comparison to address that. The comment said that failing to go after everyone at the same time as Google violates the prohibition on bills of attainder. "It's a bill of attainder if you go after Google for violating people's privacy unless you simultaneously — not later, but simultaneously — go after everyone for violating people's privacy" is exactly the same as "It's a bill of attainder if you go after me for X unless you simultaneously — not later, but simultaneously — go after everyone for X." Whether or not you think they should be able to go after anyone for what Google is doing is a different question, but it's definitely not a bill of attainder to go after one party before others, which was the thing that was called a bill of attainder here ("We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first?").