4 ms·
IANAL but from reading it literally; It seems that the bill goes the other way too, in actually granting the power to take down the companies for 'misappropriat
by Joakal 15y ago
IANAL but from reading it literally; It seems that the bill goes the other way too, in actually granting the power to take down the companies for 'misappropriation' of 'personally identifiable information'.
Since EFF claims this would 'bypass all existing laws', it looks like sovereign immunity laws won't apply. Therefore it's possible to take down the government websites, again, for 'misappropriation' of 'personally identifiable information'.
- ktizo 15y agoSovereign immunity laws seem to have a habit of always applying. And will often rise, like zombies, despite repeated attempts to kill them off. All it comes down to really is that sovereign immunity laws are written by the people who control the guns, to protect the people who control the guns. So they are going to apply in as many circumstances as possible. And even when they don't, they probably still will.
- einhverfr 15y agoSovereign Immunity only applies to tort law at least in the US, right? In which case, I fail to see how that even applies here. It might allow ISPs to block government web sites on some suspicion. But would an ISP do so? I doubt it.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- einhverfr 15y agoMaybe, but you have to ask, who will win in any power struggle? I am willing to bet that between ISPs, consumers, and the government, it is consumers. In particular here, it is consumers who are the losers here power-wise, and so..... One of the reasons why overbroad laws are a problem is that they set up a "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" system.
- scrod 15y ago"Between equal rights force decides."