3 ms·
What is the legal basis for releasing the someone's private files and communications? If they can do it to Epstein, they can do it to you, to the Washington Pos
by mmooss 9mo ago
What is the legal basis for releasing the someone's private files and communications? If they can do it to Epstein, they can do it to you, to the Washington Post journalist, to former President Clinton, etc.
Is the scope at least limited somehow? Generally I favor transparency, but of course probably the most important parts are withheld.
- pstuart 9mo agoI'd assume it was the nature of the case, and that discovery was done with him being dead.
- dwater 9mo agoIt was passed into law by congress and signed by the president: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_Files_Transparency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_Files_Transparency_Act
- pyvpx 9mo agoI believe a literal Act of Congress…
- toast0 9mo ago> What is the legal basis for releasing the someone's private files and communications? An act of congress, for one. Also, AFAIK, federal privacy generally ends at death, as does criminal liability; so releasing government files from a federal investigation after death of the subject is generally within the realm of acceptable conduct.
- mmooss 9mo agoYes, I forgot about that major part of the story! Still, acts of Congress can't violate Consitutional rights. It seems unlikely you lose all rights when you die or it would be chaos - imagine all the secrets people die with that affect everyone they know. An integral part of every estate plan would be incinerating records. Wills do have real power.
- cindyllm 9mo ago[dead]
- toast0 9mo agoYour estate retains many of your rights when you die. However, the federal privacy act explicitly does not apply. Your estate may have privacy rights via the Constitution, although privacy is not specifically enumerated. Your estate may have privacy rights via state law; but that wouldn't bar the federal government from disclosing its investigative materials. OTOH, there's a 2004 case, National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish[1], which establishes the surviving family's right of privacy to death scene photos, but that's technically not privacy of the deceased. [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/oip/blog/foia-post-2004-supreme-court-rules-survivor-privacy-favish https://www.justice.gov/archives/oip/blog/foia-post-2004-sup...
- 34679 9mo agoIn my late teens, I worked as a bill collector. If I suspected an account owner was deceased, I'd call the Social Security Administration and ask them if they had a certificate of death on file. If they didn't, they'd tell me they couldn't comment. If they did, they'd say so, because dead people don't have a right to privacy.
- anigbrowl 9mo agohttps://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405...
- zahlman 9mo agoI assume this could not have passed while he was alive, because of the "bill of attainder" thing? (It also surprises me that this passed anyway, given that both sides of the aisle seem to have people with clear reason to keep it covered up... ?) (Also, Maxwell is specifically named, and is still alive... ?)
- streetfighter64 9mo agoGiven what we've seen so far, there's probably some very interesting stuff in Clinton's private files and communications. Not to mention the stuff in current president Trump's. Some random journalist, probably not. Unless it's a very wealthy and/or connected journalist like David Brooks...
- todfox 9mo agoHe was a pedophile sex trafficker. Epstein and his clients deserve zero privacy.
- mmooss 9mo agoWho determines who deserves privacy, and how do they determine it?
- PantaloonFlames 9mo agoYou’ve sidestepped the important part of the question.