I was thinking about that because it seemed like a cost they could just afford to ignore ($91m/yr), this was probably not the limit of the penalties they could have faced.
Right, but what would that look like? Would the FISA court jail a citizen without a trial, and can you imagine a FISA judge wanting to make that call, knowing that their decision will soon become public? Because once someone is prosecuted the U.S. govt would really have difficulty enforcing silence. It's one thing to force a company to be silent about surveillance, it's quite another to force individuals to be silent about being jailed. I'd like to think we haven't gone so far off the tracks that the first amendment wouldn't ultimately triumph in that case.
Just as 'Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder' is simply 'Shell Shock'
Language changes depending on how you want the person to feel about a subject.
if you want people to hate and revile someone for doing something you do call it something strong and fierce (blackmail) if you want to do something yourself make it sound lawful (IE; parallel construction).
I have read that the FISA court can indeed hold sometime in contempt secretly. For all we know if Yahoo had continued to resist their executives would have simply started disappearing.
Seeing how the gov't can seemingly pull fines and penalties out from thin air (a la Russia Sanctions still ongoing and new), I think it's safe to say the $250K per day would have only been just the beginning.
I could tell you a story about this squeaky clean guy I know who's in prison for fraud, because he refused to comply with a secret court order... but I can't, because I don't want to join him.
I could tell you another story about a barrister I know who had his career destroyed and his wife "suicided" for refusing to do certain things around a trial in the UK - but again, I fear repercussions should I say anything.
Not really, sorry. I mean, yes, desperately, but I fear repercussions for the individuals concerned, myself, their families, etc.
Suffice to say that of what you read in the press about the misdoings of important individual X should be taken with a heaping of salt and a cynical eye.
We live in the age of assassination without murder.
Nay. It isn't really about me, or what I communicate, rather that by discussing the detail it'd make it abundantly clear who I'm talking about - and I do not want to enhance either of their miseries.
Additionally, merely by dint of me being able to know these things about these people it would make clear who I am, as I dare say there are a limited number of folks who have these two in their graph, and an even more limited number who are publicly anti-establishment, and thus potentially negate my ability to do anything positive about this.
Sorry. If I do opt to go public with these tales it'll be via the Grauniad or somesuch, as only with significant clout, correlation and voice will there be any impact - otherwise it'll just be reburied in disinformation.
reply