Economics: January 2008 Archives
A story in the Wall Street Journal brings up the debate in congress over whether Telcos like AT&T or Verizon should be held responsible for handing over customer data to the US government illegally when the US government was illegally wiretapping its citizens.
Why is there a debate here? WTF?
Yeah. Did I mention that the whole operation was illegal? Let's be clear here. NO ONE in D.C. is arguing that any part of this operation was legal (the White House has claimed that it has special war-time powers to ignore the law, but never claimed that it was acting within the law).
So, basically, Bush is saying, "Ya'll can't persecute them or they won't help me break the law next time around."
Yes, I intentionally replaced prosecute with persecute. If the man can't speak coherently, don't expect me to correct his grammar when I paraphrase him.
Anyway, the WSJ goes on:
Again, I call bullshit. I call holy-shit-that-bullshit-stinks-more-than-ordinary-bullshit.
(And, before I go any further, your little trick of putting the ACLU right next to terrorists in the same sentence is deplorable. Ooooooh, you're a tricky little bastard aren't you? Almost fell for that one! Of course, it's even more deplorable that the WSJ didn't MAKE FUN OF YOUR TRANSPARENT BIAS. All the fucking time, with the press corp...)
Mr. Turner, when our government breaks the law there should be consequences. Furthermore, when our government approaches a corporation and asks them to help it break the law, we WANT the corporations to react something like this:
"You want what? Is that legal?"
"No? Then, um, why should we do that?"
"So, lemme get this straight. You're breaking federal law and you want us to help?"
"Lemme talk to my boss...."
"OK, he says that shit's illegal. Get the hell out of here."
And if they don't react like that, OF COURSE we want the ACLU to sue them! They broke the LAW!
Now, Mr. Turner, I'm pretty sure you know the law better than I do. And there are plenty of provisions in the law that allow for corporations to be treated just like people. But I'm also pretty sure that I am more familiar with corporations, and their economic incentives, than you are. Let me tell you a little secret: even though the law pretends that corporations are people, corporations aren't people. They don't have moral codes. They are collections of individuals who react according to one primary incentive: making money for their shareholders. Sure, there are other incentives, and some stakeholders may have some moral incentives, but that one incentive is by far the biggest.
One part of making lots of money is to keep costs down. So when the US government knocks on your door and says "Gimme some data. I know it's illegal, but I don't care," you can refuse, but that will probably cost money. Why? Well, the government has lots of powers to do lots of things that will cost you lots of money (audits, investigations, etc.). Even the very time that your lawyers spend arguing with the FBI over the legality of it all is expensive. So what do many corporations do? They hand over the docs. Screw the law, costs too much money.
So, you do the math. Do you want to leave it up to the corporations to weigh morality/legality vs. cost? Especially when the "cost" of breaking the law appears to pretty much be zero, because congress will grant them immunity anyway?
Or do you want the corporation to say "Well, if we break this law, it could cost us $1000 per customer affected?"
I'm not that good at math, but...oh, wait, no I'm actually pretty good at math. Of course I want the corporations to have solid economic incentives for not breaking the law.
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution
Why is there a debate here? WTF?
The Bush administration wants to shield telecom providers from lawsuits faced as a result of participation in the president's warrantless wiretapping program and says the provision is needed to ensure future cooperation from the companies.
Yeah. Did I mention that the whole operation was illegal? Let's be clear here. NO ONE in D.C. is arguing that any part of this operation was legal (the White House has claimed that it has special war-time powers to ignore the law, but never claimed that it was acting within the law).
So, basically, Bush is saying, "Ya'll can't persecute them or they won't help me break the law next time around."
Yes, I intentionally replaced prosecute with persecute. If the man can't speak coherently, don't expect me to correct his grammar when I paraphrase him.
Anyway, the WSJ goes on:
Why is immunity needed? The White House argues that private business, particularly telecom companies, won't cooperate with intelligence-gathering if they face the threat of legal liability. "Allowing foreign terrorists, the ACLU, or anyone else to sue telecom companies because they cooperated with our government in an effort to stop enemy attacks during a congressionally authorized period of war makes absolutely no sense," says Robert Turner, a University of Virginia law professor who testified Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
Again, I call bullshit. I call holy-shit-that-bullshit-stinks-more-than-ordinary-bullshit.
(And, before I go any further, your little trick of putting the ACLU right next to terrorists in the same sentence is deplorable. Ooooooh, you're a tricky little bastard aren't you? Almost fell for that one! Of course, it's even more deplorable that the WSJ didn't MAKE FUN OF YOUR TRANSPARENT BIAS. All the fucking time, with the press corp...)
Mr. Turner, when our government breaks the law there should be consequences. Furthermore, when our government approaches a corporation and asks them to help it break the law, we WANT the corporations to react something like this:
"You want what? Is that legal?"
"No? Then, um, why should we do that?"
"So, lemme get this straight. You're breaking federal law and you want us to help?"
"Lemme talk to my boss...."
"OK, he says that shit's illegal. Get the hell out of here."
And if they don't react like that, OF COURSE we want the ACLU to sue them! They broke the LAW!
Now, Mr. Turner, I'm pretty sure you know the law better than I do. And there are plenty of provisions in the law that allow for corporations to be treated just like people. But I'm also pretty sure that I am more familiar with corporations, and their economic incentives, than you are. Let me tell you a little secret: even though the law pretends that corporations are people, corporations aren't people. They don't have moral codes. They are collections of individuals who react according to one primary incentive: making money for their shareholders. Sure, there are other incentives, and some stakeholders may have some moral incentives, but that one incentive is by far the biggest.
One part of making lots of money is to keep costs down. So when the US government knocks on your door and says "Gimme some data. I know it's illegal, but I don't care," you can refuse, but that will probably cost money. Why? Well, the government has lots of powers to do lots of things that will cost you lots of money (audits, investigations, etc.). Even the very time that your lawyers spend arguing with the FBI over the legality of it all is expensive. So what do many corporations do? They hand over the docs. Screw the law, costs too much money.
So, you do the math. Do you want to leave it up to the corporations to weigh morality/legality vs. cost? Especially when the "cost" of breaking the law appears to pretty much be zero, because congress will grant them immunity anyway?
Or do you want the corporation to say "Well, if we break this law, it could cost us $1000 per customer affected?"
I'm not that good at math, but...oh, wait, no I'm actually pretty good at math. Of course I want the corporations to have solid economic incentives for not breaking the law.
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution
