4 ms·

But.. but.. it is radio communication! Using radio waves! If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rul

by kdragon 13y ago

But.. but.. it is radio communication! Using radio waves! If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? So when a google engineering team stores unwanted, unencrypted radio communication by accident (and is entirely open about it) the courts seem so eager to throw the book? But when the U.S Government coerces telecom companies to aid in massive unconstitutional wiretapping on a global scale, congress is willing to step in and grant retroactive legal immunity to all parties? Am I taking crazy pills??

001sky 13y ago
If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? Not to point out the obvious, but laws are written using legal definintions. And those are made by the legislature and the Judiciary. The NSA (and I'm not here to defend them) at least has a prima-facie need to see certain types of protected speech under limited (court ordered, direct national threat) circumstances. Google is a merely a business, with no public policy need to creep around the neighborhood. That being said, this decisino is merely putting the issue to a trial/jury. Nobody has said google is guilty. But they are not so innocent, or so in the right, with repsect to how the law is apparently written/interpreted, than they can dismiss the claims of impropriety as "baseless, without merit" &tc. ...The unanimous, 35-page decision by a three-judge panel found little merit in Google’s legal maneuverings, stating at one critical point that the company was basically inventing meanings in an effort to declare its actions legal
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
nknighthb 13y ago
Not that I'm fond of the decision at issue, but statutory construction is not and has never been dictated by "scientific facts", and you don't want it to be. Scientific understanding is ever in motion, and never entirely matches the common understanding of How Things Work. Your head may explode, by the way, when you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

by kdragon 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? Not to point out the obvious, but laws are written using legal definintions. And those are made by the legislature and the Judiciary. The NSA (and I'm not here to defend them) at least has a prima-facie need to see certain types of protected speech under limited (court ordered, direct national threat) circumstances. Google is a merely a business, with no public policy need to creep around the neighborhood. That being said, this decisino is merely putting the issue to a trial/jury. Nobody has said google is guilty. But they are not so innocent, or so in the right, with repsect to how the law is apparently written/interpreted, than they can dismiss the claims of impropriety as "baseless, without merit" &tc. ...The unanimous, 35-page decision by a three-judge panel found little merit in Google’s legal maneuverings, stating at one critical point that the company was basically inventing meanings in an effort to declare its actions legal

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

nknighthb 13y ago

Not that I'm fond of the decision at issue, but statutory construction is not and has never been dictated by "scientific facts", and you don't want it to be. Scientific understanding is ever in motion, and never entirely matches the common understanding of How Things Work. Your head may explode, by the way, when you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden