Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, June 10, 2008 02:45 PM

  Re; Comcast letter

  [Comcast lawyer-speak]: Moreover, all of the lawsuits for which you have provided links are civil suits that would not result in criminal liability, even if decided against the defendants.

  50 USC § 1809 and § 1810 both cover the same underlying acts. In fact (and in particular), the civil damages provision (§ 1810) references violations of the criminal statute, § 1809, in specifying what acts can be redressed thorough civil damage suits:

  An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover -
  (a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
  (b) punitive damages; and
  (c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and
  

  litigation costs reasonably incurred.

  To prevail in court, the plaintiffs would have to show that the actions prohibited by § 1809 had in fact occurred. That the maladministration refuses to prosecute itself or the telcos is irrelevant. And in fact, if some telco employees participated in illegal activities, it's not at all clear that they wouldn't be in jeopardy of criminal prosecution if we didn't have a dysfunctional Department of "Just Us".

  Cheers,

  —Arne Langsetmo Read Arne Langsetmo's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel