[namank]

The implications are more serious than immunity for NSA actions.

This law could circumvent the breaking of ALL and ANY laws by these companies. After such a law is passed, companies may not have to be accountable to anyone. When questioned, they can lie about it and say the NSA said so.

They don't need to release transparency reports cuz the NSA said so. Any tech company can lie to the Privacy Commissioner cuz the NSA said so. They can do anything cuz the NSA said so.

This is the mother of all loopholes. Good luck, world­.

[anigbrowl]

Except that they'd have to do so in court, and the NSA would have the option of filing an amicus curiae brief saying 'oh no we didn't.'

[namank]

Except that companies would want to negotiate, lets say, a contract to include a gray area clause that serves as an incentive for the companies to keep doing this.

Once this thing becomes legal, companies have grounds to organize this as a trade with the NSA. The funny (maybe scary is the right word?) part is that they can legally lie about this because it's with the NSA.

[anigbrowl]

Wildly implausible.

[namank]

I find it to be the direct consequence of institutionalization.

[anigbrowl]

We will continue to differ about this. I consider public institutions to be more responsive than you do, so I suppose we are looking at it from quite different perspectives.

[namank]

It's not about responsiveness as much as it is about self-interest and bureaucratic thinking that is inherent in all institutions.

[e3pi]

"No comment. Ask the NSA", or, "By the 2013 Alexander Act, I reserve the right not to incriminate myself."