2 ms·
Yeah, I think the interesting thing here is the flip-side of them (Mega) not being a US entity in anyway. I read a while ago (no links I'm afraid) that essentia
by geoffw8 15y ago
Yeah, I think the interesting thing here is the flip-side of them (Mega) not being a US entity in anyway. I read a while ago (no links I'm afraid) that essentially a US agency/regulator has to give permission for a US based entity to sue an agency like the FBI. I'd be very interested to see how it plays out for someone like Mega, or their web hosts if in fact they did win. There'd be no protection in place. They'd have to battle.
I'd be interested to know if any HN'ers have anything more solid to add?
- mokus 15y ago"I read a while ago (no links I'm afraid) that essentially a US agency/regulator has to give permission for a US based entity to sue an agency like the FBI." Is "sovereign immunity"[1] perhaps the concept you are referring to? It was mentioned in an HN comment thread a while ago, but I don't remember the exact context. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...
- geoffw8 15y agoAhh yes that indeed was what I was referring too. Interestingly it is in fact (if I'm reading this right) mentioned as being exempt: "certain claims of monetary damages against the United States are exempt from sovereign immunity" [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States#Certain_contracts_with_the_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...
- mokus 15y agoI'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the Tucker act only applies to cases where the government states or implies that it will pay something and then doesn't, so the government can't just breach contracts with impunity.