From TPMmuck's latest on telecom immunity, Kurt Opsahl, one of the lawyers for the Electronic Freedom Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T:
Above all, Opsahl said, it's important to realize that for the plaintiffs in the suit to collect damages of billions, "they need to have spied on a lot of people. If they say that the interceptions and surveillance is limited to only people in communication with Al Qaeda, that suggests it's a very small number and therefore a very small amount in damages. For it to be billions, they need to have spied on millions of people."
Immunity is only necessary if,
A) Telecomm providers and the US government broke the law; and,
B) They did so in a way that violated the rights of millions of people.
Without both of these there's no need for immunity. And with both of them, how can anyone possibly think it makes any sense to grant immunity?
Freedom from unlawful searches and seizures is one of the bedrock principles about which our nation was founded. It is a non-negotiable right, and not something to be traded away for nothing more than a promise of momentary security. Why is this so hard for so many people to see?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
