3 ms·

Any discussion of this must center the fact that the surveillance began in Jan.-Feb. 2001, NOT after 11 September. The one telecom executive who objected was i

Any discussion of this must center the fact that the surveillance began in Jan.-Feb. 2001, NOT after 11 September. The one telecom executive who objected was instantly framed into prison.

amiga386 20d ago
[dead]
bilekas 20d ago
Just because we've been handling privacy terribly forever so far, doesn't means we should continue to though.
leonidasrup 20d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio " He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007 – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001. This defense was not admissible in court because the U.S. Department of Justice filed an in limine motion, which is often used in national security cases, to exclude information which may reveal state secrets. Information from the Classified Information Procedures Act hearings in Nacchio's case was likewise ruled inadmissible. "
- kakacik 20d ago
  Interesting case, even after reading its not clear to me if he was exemplary revenge one-shot by USG (expecting big contracts from parts of government which they promptly cancelled since he wasn't willing to hand over customer data without court order, so stocks tanked) or really did some nefarious things. But generally, one does not fuck with / reject a government that is expected to give one lucrative contracts worth >hundreds of millions. Absolute objectivity ain't a feature of mankind generally, is it.
  - sobkas 20d ago
    It's not a law if it can be selectively enforced against individuals, powers that be don't like.
- blackdahlia313 19d ago
  "limine motion" And as soon as that was called, the case should have just been thrown out.

3 ms·

Any discussion of this must center the fact that the surveillance began in Jan.-Feb. 2001, NOT after 11 September. The one telecom executive who objected was i

by FrankWilhoit 20d ago

Any discussion of this must center the fact that the surveillance began in Jan.-Feb. 2001, NOT after 11 September. The one telecom executive who objected was instantly framed into prison.

amiga386 20d ago
[dead]
bilekas 20d ago
Just because we've been handling privacy terribly forever so far, doesn't means we should continue to though.
leonidasrup 20d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio " He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007 – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001. This defense was not admissible in court because the U.S. Department of Justice filed an in limine motion, which is often used in national security cases, to exclude information which may reveal state secrets. Information from the Classified Information Procedures Act hearings in Nacchio's case was likewise ruled inadmissible. "
- kakacik 20d ago
  Interesting case, even after reading its not clear to me if he was exemplary revenge one-shot by USG (expecting big contracts from parts of government which they promptly cancelled since he wasn't willing to hand over customer data without court order, so stocks tanked) or really did some nefarious things. But generally, one does not fuck with / reject a government that is expected to give one lucrative contracts worth >hundreds of millions. Absolute objectivity ain't a feature of mankind generally, is it.
  - sobkas 20d ago
    It's not a law if it can be selectively enforced against individuals, powers that be don't like.
- blackdahlia313 19d ago
  "limine motion" And as soon as that was called, the case should have just been thrown out.