There's been a bit of agreement amongst a surprisingly wide range of political groups, from Libertarians to Liberals, regarding the recent debate regarding major telecommunication companies being held non-liable for cooperating with the Federal Government in post-9/11 warrant-less wire taps.
I'll start by revealing my bias for telecommunications companies. My mother has worked for a major one for 28 years. It put me through college, and helped me live a very nice childhood. With that out of the way, I'd just like to propose a few arguments to poke holes in the logic. There may be holes in my logic, no doubt, but I think it's an interesting debate.
The major issue is obviously that phone companies invaded the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Well, they let the government do all the snooping, but they played the key role. This is the major source of discontent with people, and it is very understandable. I will not argue against this, as I firmly believe in the protection of personal privacy.
What I want to argue is that it's not consistent, regarding precedence, to blame the telecommunications companies and outright say they are at fault. They were simply helping the government. Sure, they could have said "No, that's illegal." But look at it realistically: they'd be telling the people who are supposed to enforce the law that what they want to do is illegal.
On top of that, all telecommunications companies are heavily involved with the government because of the regulations the government has on their normal business operations. This is seen all of the time with rulings passed down by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is involved with almost every aspect of business, so telecommunications companies have to answer to the government in order to make a profit. Don't forget: these are companies that offer a service that is for profit. They aren't non-profit organizations handing out food to people. They're capitalists. That's just some insight on their motivations for helping out; it's not a legal excuse.
What might be construed as a legal excuse is the precedence. Let's just stick with the whole idea of "you do what the government says." Let's just ignore the whole privacy debate for now, though it is quite important.
As far as logic goes, precedence is meaningless. If something happened before, it doesn't mean it has to happen again "just because." But, from a legal standpoint, precedence is very important. Just look at Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade. Those are all examples of preceding instances that can be legally cited in a court of law as being de-facto rules of operation. Now, let's use the idea of legal precedence for general business and government intervention.
The Food and Drug Administration makes policies that make sure you eat healthy food. It is an organization that is necessary to prevent massive food poisoning and other health hazards. How is this organization effective? Does it use Public Service Announcements? Sure, but it also has the power of legal action. They can legally fine businesses for not complying. They basically control how the food industry operates. And, for the most part, people agree with the actions the FDA takes, because it is for our protection.
Let's say there is a massive outbreak of cholera that is the result of bad beef from South America. The FDA finds out about this, and realizes that they're not exactly sure when the bad beef started to enter the country. So, they take drastic action and make it illegal for businesses in (let's say) Louisiana to sell beef until the problem is dealt with. If a business sells beef, and is caught, they are fined by the FDA. Could this happen? I'm not sure, but I bet it has. But what's likely to happen is businesses in Louisiana will be very motivated to stop all sales of beef, for fear of action taken by the government. They're simply trying to do business. They could risk it and sell the beef to make a profit, but if they're caught, they'd be more likely to be put out of business.
Now let's break down the comparison between the fictional Louisiana beef distributors and the actual telecommunication companies. They are both heavily involved with the government in that they are regulated. They are both presented with a serious problem and approached by the government to take action. Sure, one problem involves the invasion of privacy and the other simply prevents people from eating beef for a while, so they're not quite on the same level. Ignoring that fact, and just paying attention to the concept of trying to prevent the government from getting its way, what is the difference? The action is first taken by the government, so isn't that the source? Should we be going after the messenger?
It may be true that the telecommunications companies helped violate personal privacy, but they aren't the ones to blame. They aren't utility companies that are legally obligated to hold down their prices. They are businesses that provide a service and that answer to the government. If you really want to help prevent future invasions of privacy, you have to look at the legal standing the government has to be allowed to even ask the companies to do it. It's a disappointing situation overall, but I'm not upset that the phone companies were let off the hook (pardon the pun).
I'll start by revealing my bias for telecommunications companies. My mother has worked for a major one for 28 years. It put me through college, and helped me live a very nice childhood. With that out of the way, I'd just like to propose a few arguments to poke holes in the logic. There may be holes in my logic, no doubt, but I think it's an interesting debate.
The major issue is obviously that phone companies invaded the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Well, they let the government do all the snooping, but they played the key role. This is the major source of discontent with people, and it is very understandable. I will not argue against this, as I firmly believe in the protection of personal privacy.
What I want to argue is that it's not consistent, regarding precedence, to blame the telecommunications companies and outright say they are at fault. They were simply helping the government. Sure, they could have said "No, that's illegal." But look at it realistically: they'd be telling the people who are supposed to enforce the law that what they want to do is illegal.
On top of that, all telecommunications companies are heavily involved with the government because of the regulations the government has on their normal business operations. This is seen all of the time with rulings passed down by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is involved with almost every aspect of business, so telecommunications companies have to answer to the government in order to make a profit. Don't forget: these are companies that offer a service that is for profit. They aren't non-profit organizations handing out food to people. They're capitalists. That's just some insight on their motivations for helping out; it's not a legal excuse.
What might be construed as a legal excuse is the precedence. Let's just stick with the whole idea of "you do what the government says." Let's just ignore the whole privacy debate for now, though it is quite important.
As far as logic goes, precedence is meaningless. If something happened before, it doesn't mean it has to happen again "just because." But, from a legal standpoint, precedence is very important. Just look at Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade. Those are all examples of preceding instances that can be legally cited in a court of law as being de-facto rules of operation. Now, let's use the idea of legal precedence for general business and government intervention.
The Food and Drug Administration makes policies that make sure you eat healthy food. It is an organization that is necessary to prevent massive food poisoning and other health hazards. How is this organization effective? Does it use Public Service Announcements? Sure, but it also has the power of legal action. They can legally fine businesses for not complying. They basically control how the food industry operates. And, for the most part, people agree with the actions the FDA takes, because it is for our protection.
Let's say there is a massive outbreak of cholera that is the result of bad beef from South America. The FDA finds out about this, and realizes that they're not exactly sure when the bad beef started to enter the country. So, they take drastic action and make it illegal for businesses in (let's say) Louisiana to sell beef until the problem is dealt with. If a business sells beef, and is caught, they are fined by the FDA. Could this happen? I'm not sure, but I bet it has. But what's likely to happen is businesses in Louisiana will be very motivated to stop all sales of beef, for fear of action taken by the government. They're simply trying to do business. They could risk it and sell the beef to make a profit, but if they're caught, they'd be more likely to be put out of business.
Now let's break down the comparison between the fictional Louisiana beef distributors and the actual telecommunication companies. They are both heavily involved with the government in that they are regulated. They are both presented with a serious problem and approached by the government to take action. Sure, one problem involves the invasion of privacy and the other simply prevents people from eating beef for a while, so they're not quite on the same level. Ignoring that fact, and just paying attention to the concept of trying to prevent the government from getting its way, what is the difference? The action is first taken by the government, so isn't that the source? Should we be going after the messenger?
It may be true that the telecommunications companies helped violate personal privacy, but they aren't the ones to blame. They aren't utility companies that are legally obligated to hold down their prices. They are businesses that provide a service and that answer to the government. If you really want to help prevent future invasions of privacy, you have to look at the legal standing the government has to be allowed to even ask the companies to do it. It's a disappointing situation overall, but I'm not upset that the phone companies were let off the hook (pardon the pun).
No comments:
Post a Comment