Aeolus and I were discussing this over instant messaging, and we wanted to invite you all to join in.
We would like to discuss the more philosophical aspects of the Senate's decision to grant immunity to telecom companies that complied with NSA wiretapping requests (demands?).
Should the law allow people and corporations to perform illegal activities at the government's command? What are the moral implications of doing so? Further, if you are unsure of the legality of your actions, and fear that refusing the government's request would violate the law, does morality demand that you violate the law before violating the public interest?
In this particular case, is our verdict affected by the fact that the corporation possessed, at the time of the wiretapping, a legal and moral obligation to protect the privacy of its customers?
I will admit that I am still on the fence on this one, since it is obviously a tough call. From a legal perspective, I am hesitant to accept the telecoms' argument that they should be exempted from legal responsibility for their actions because those actions were ordered by a government agency. These companies have massive legal departments and plenty of ready cash to bring in outside consultants, in order to determine whether or not 1) the NSA's request was legal and 2) disobeying the request was legal. If their primary concern had been the protection of their customers, I think we would have seen a lot more resistance on their part, and this probably would have come to light sooner. As such, I am inclined to feel that they did not take their customers' rights very seriously, and thus were relatively happy to throw their duty of care under the bus when the going got tough. This hardly seems to satisfy their legal obligation to their customers.
This sort of situation is difficult to imagine on an individual level, but there are examples. As a CPA (soon to be, I hope), there are certain responsibilities that I have to my clients that are not easily discharged. If specific records regarding one of my clients are legally subpoenaed, I have no client-accountant privilege and must turn over the records. However, absent this sort of legal process, I am forbidden from revealing confidential information about any of my clients. If a NSA agent came up to me and requested to rifle through my computer, I feel that I would be legally (and morally) obligated to refuse access until I was satisfied that the request was a legal one. On the other hand, would I be conflicted on whether I wanted to risk prison for my clients? You bet.
My professional situation would also differ from being asked by a cop on the street to use a spare key to let them into a neighboring apartment. I may or may not know what my responsibilities and rights are, and thus may make the incorrect decision. In this case, I would hope that prosecutors and judges would take that uncertainty into account when choosing whether to press charges or pass sentence.
Ultimately, then, I feel that telecom immunity is the wrong decision from a legal standpoint. I would much prefer that the law stand as is, leaving these companies accountable. This would leave it to the prosecutors to decide not to press charges, or to the courts to acquit them. The legislature is the supreme authority in the land, and I do not feel it is appropriate for them to grant special immunity from prosecution to a group of individuals that are quite capable of defending themselves, while failing to clarify the legal situation for the rest of us. This will send a signal to corporations that they can expect safe haven if they follow government requests without question, while doing nothing to guide me when faced with a similar situation. That sounds like a double standard, a failure to govern, and a dangerous precedent about executive power all in the same breath.
From a moral perspective, well. If you know me, you know that I tend towards breaking the law in such situations, but I am interested to hear other arguments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)