On Thursday, A United States appeal court stated that the 2008 law which granted legal immunity to telecommunication companies that aided the National Security Agency in email and telephone eavesdropping was constitutional.
Thirty three lawsuits were filed against various telecommunication companies by customers that had accused the companies of violating the customer's first amendment right. The case was brought into question because in 2008 Congress passed laws that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that "allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants."
"In its unanimous ruling, the court noted comments made by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the legal immunity’s role in helping the government gather intelligence." Furthermore, in the past, government lawyers have argued that in stopping such cases, that "defending the program in court would jeopardize national security."
What do you all think of this? Do you think it was right for the courts to rule this law constitutional? Or, do you think by allowing this law to be constitutional, that we create a whole series of loop holes in our laws that our government can't afford to have?
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree with the court's ruling. I think some cases can be on the fence between privacy and security, but this ruling is quite obviously an attack on the privacy and first amendment rights of American citizens. I also think that it's ironic that the court is giving telecommunication companies the right to violate customers' privacy without warrants, while the 4th Amendment clearly protects citizens from "unreasonable search and seizure" without warrants.
I agree with Rebecca that the court's ruling was horrible and that the law is unconstitutional in which the government directly violates the Fourth Amendment and the privacies of fellow American citizens. However, the court's ruling will probably still stand as this case is very similar to the controversy of the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act is constitutional and is still ongoing. As long as were at war and are national security is threaten, these potentially abusive power will remain.
Post a Comment