3 ms·

Don’t you ever roll your eyes when you see a headline with “Soros-funded group does X” in it? No. I try to ignore headlines because they are a waste of my limi

Don’t you ever roll your eyes when you see a headline with “Soros-funded group does X” in it? No. I try to ignore headlines because they are a waste of my limited time and intentionally provocative. I read the articles sometimes, though. In this case, it is a strategic lawsuit, leveraging a popular and reasonable cause (what Massachusetts and Google did was wrong) in order to incrementally weaken precedents towards other, mostly unrelated, goals (also wrong). edit: The way groups like the NCLA operate is by weakening protections in a quiet way under the guise of populist and popular causes. I won't defend Mass or Google, because I don't agree with them here, but it does not follow that I should support the NCLA suit.

dmix 4y ago
Which precedents? Governments getting to install arbitrary apps for "people’s own good"? Or making it difficult for gov/big tech to exploit an emergency to expand surveillance, that conveniently sticks around after the emergency ends?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
friend_and_foe 4y ago
FYI the comment replying to this one is a different person than the one this one is replying to, also you didn't actually answer the first, more pertinent question you're replying to.
Natsu 4y ago
Thank you for linking the actual lawsuit earlier, I found it informative. That said, I'm trying but I'm not seeing what 'precedents' they're weakening, other than that the government can't force install tracking apps on one's phone without consent. Seems like they ask for a lot of declarations that this was unlawful and they shouldn't do it again, $1 in nominal damages, and attorney's fees. What sinister plans am I missing here? Just for reference, I voluntarily installed a Covid tracking app on my phone.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  You can agree that something is wrong, but disagree strongly about why it's wrong. To show standing, you have to have injury, causation, and remedy. You might hear about people bring civil cases for violating civil rights instead of wrongful death. This is a legal tactic to get the best changes of a desired outcome. You can see the nature of what NCLA is after in the claims for relief on page 25 and relief requested on page 33. The claims of violations of 4th and 5th amendments and CFAA (counts I, III, and VII) and relief Requested c-g are what I think you're missing. Privacy violation? Fine. Injunctions? Declaration it violated MA common law? Costs, expenses, and fees? Fine. The rest is seeking strategic precedents. It's a part of why they only seeking nominal damages of $1.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    You may have to clarify a bit more about what's wrong with the precedent they seek. Stating that it's bad to force install apps on one's phone that track them doesn't seem very abuse-able to me offhand. Not sure what you're saying about standing, either. Seems like they've at least plead to a reasonable injury that the state should have jurisdiction over based on acts caused by the state & Google and they list various remedies. Now the other side can argue with all of that, but the pleadings don't seem obviously defective to me.

dmix 4y ago

Which precedents? Governments getting to install arbitrary apps for "people’s own good"? Or making it difficult for gov/big tech to exploit an emergency to expand surveillance, that conveniently sticks around after the emergency ends?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

friend_and_foe 4y ago

FYI the comment replying to this one is a different person than the one this one is replying to, also you didn't actually answer the first, more pertinent question you're replying to.

Natsu 4y ago

Thank you for linking the actual lawsuit earlier, I found it informative. That said, I'm trying but I'm not seeing what 'precedents' they're weakening, other than that the government can't force install tracking apps on one's phone without consent. Seems like they ask for a lot of declarations that this was unlawful and they shouldn't do it again, $1 in nominal damages, and attorney's fees. What sinister plans am I missing here? Just for reference, I voluntarily installed a Covid tracking app on my phone.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 4y ago
You can agree that something is wrong, but disagree strongly about why it's wrong. To show standing, you have to have injury, causation, and remedy. You might hear about people bring civil cases for violating civil rights instead of wrongful death. This is a legal tactic to get the best changes of a desired outcome. You can see the nature of what NCLA is after in the claims for relief on page 25 and relief requested on page 33. The claims of violations of 4th and 5th amendments and CFAA (counts I, III, and VII) and relief Requested c-g are what I think you're missing. Privacy violation? Fine. Injunctions? Declaration it violated MA common law? Costs, expenses, and fees? Fine. The rest is seeking strategic precedents. It's a part of why they only seeking nominal damages of $1.
- Natsu 4y ago
  You may have to clarify a bit more about what's wrong with the precedent they seek. Stating that it's bad to force install apps on one's phone that track them doesn't seem very abuse-able to me offhand. Not sure what you're saying about standing, either. Seems like they've at least plead to a reasonable injury that the state should have jurisdiction over based on acts caused by the state & Google and they list various remedies. Now the other side can argue with all of that, but the pleadings don't seem obviously defective to me.