How Much Justice Can You Afford? (US Govt v Yahoo)

[Steve_MB]

Why wait for your secret rubber-stamp court to reject an appeal when you can force compliance right away?

For an illuminating glimpse of government power in action, it’s hard to beat the fines the Justice Department threatened to level against Yahoo if it didn’t comply with a secret and sweeping surveillance request in 2008. News coverage of the case, for which documents were unsealed last week, reported the proposed fines as $250,000 a day. But there was also a clause that called for a doubling of the amount each week if Yahoo refused to comply. It was more than enough to bankrupt the company after just a few months…

Had Yahoo continued resisting the government’s order while it made the appeal, the company never could have paid its legal bills – or anything else. The equivalent of Yahoo’s total revenue for 2008, a healthy $7.2 billion, would have been gone by end of the twelfth week. If the company could have somehow found the cash, it could have paid off the entire U.S. debt, about $9.5 trillion at the time, in the fifth month.

At the six month mark, the relentlessly doubling fine would have equaled $117 trillion. Depending on the calculation you use, the fine would have exceeded the total dollar value of the entire Earth itself (including economic assets and the physical value of the planet itself) in either the eighth or ninth month. And before the 10th month, the amount would have exceeded the dollar value of steel used in the (fictional) Death Star, as calculated by enterprising economics students at Lehigh University…

[Smapti]

So Yahoo not only lost the case, and the appeal, they also didn’t bother to ask for a stay of the fines while the appeal was being litigated?

Sounds like Yahoo needed that money to pay a better lawyer.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Smapti

So Yahoo not only lost the case, and the appeal, they also didn’t bother to ask for a stay of the fines while the appeal was being litigated?

Sounds like Yahoo needed that money to pay a better lawyer.

Are you an idiot or just … no, there’s no other choice, really.

Completely bypassing the main implications of the story, you instead focus on getting in a one-off quip that highlights nothing more than a sub-par intelligence and capacity for thought. You fucking moron.

You blow your ass-trumpet to point out that Yahoo lost the case and appeal (which would result in it being subject to the fines threatened) then switch to your rectal sousaphone to deride them for not asking for a stay of fines … which you just said they would have been subject to. In the same sentence.

You utter moron.

[Smapti]

Well, why didn’t they ask for a stay, if I’m a moron and you’re clearly of such greater intelligence?

[Rhythmdvl]

If you’re going to push your stupidity, first cite that they didn’t request a stay.

But more importantly, you can stop the giggling fit and indeed turn the Pit’s laughter from you to me if you can write a coherent sentence about what would have happened to the fine had Yahoo been successful in requesting the stay, but as you pointed out in your own post, lost the case and appeal.

[Smapti]

@Rhythmdvl

If you’re going to push your stupidity, first cite that they didn’t request a stay.

“Can you prove it didn’t happen?”

But more importantly, you can stop the giggling fit and indeed turn the Pit’s laughter from you to me if you can write a coherent sentence about what would have happened to the fine had Yahoo been successful in requesting the stay, but as you pointed out in your own post, lost the case and appeal.

Presumably they’d have to either comply with the order or pay the fine.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Smapti

“Can you prove it didn’t happen?”

You’re the one claiming they didn’t ask for a stay, etc. Since this is the extent of your response, it’s clear you’re just making shit up.

Presumably they’d have to either comply with the order or pay the fine.

Holy shit you’re stupid. Really, really dumb. Just spectacularly idiotic.

[Smapti]

@Rhythmdvl

You’re the one claiming they didn’t ask for a stay, etc. Since this is the extent of your response, it’s clear you’re just making shit up.

The article says nothing about them requesting a stay. Do you have some reason for assuming they did that you’re keeping secret from the rest of us?

[Knowed_Out]

From this part of the article, it looks like Yahoo didn’t have the opportunity to ask for a stay.

Yahoo lost its case before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April 2008 and, as the company prepared to appeal to a higher court, the government requested that the daily fines begin. Rather than pay them, the company began furnishing the requested user data while it continued its legal fight. The company eventually lost the appeal.

Most of the article is just speculating on how much the total fine could have escalated to. It’s just mathematical whacking off.

[kayaker]

@Smapti

“Can you prove it didn’t happen?”

Not the way it works.

[Smapti]

@kayaker

Not the way it works.

I know, which is why I was pointing it out.

You did notice I was the one being asked to prove they didn’t ask for a stay, right?

[glee]

N.B. bolding below is mine

@Smapti

So Yahoo not only lost the case, and the appeal, they also didn’t bother to ask for a stay of the fines while the appeal was being litigated?

@Smapti

You did notice I was the one being asked to prove they didn’t ask for a stay, right?

Yes, we noticed.

Here’s how it works:

• you make a claim
• if asked, you give a cite

Do you have a cite for your claim?

[kayaker]

@Smapti

I know, which is why I was pointing it out.

You did notice I was the one being asked to prove they didn’t ask for a stay, right?

You were asked for proof of a claim you made. At this point you’ve become an embarrassment.

[Smapti]

Fine, I’ll do your homework for you since you’re far too busy calling me names to actually find out if I’m wrong or not;

Yahoo asked for a stay of the original ruling while it appealed, but the government insisted that the court should not allow a stay and should order Yahoo to hand over the data or pay the $250,000 per day fine – which even the government refers to as a “coercive fine.”

FISA Court judge Reggie Walton denied Yahoo’s request for the stay, meaning Yahoo would likely have been found in contempt if it didn’t start handing over data.

Guess they did ask for a stay, then. I guess my little one-liner was wrong.

Yahoo probably could still have used a better lawyer, though.

[Little_Nemo]

I don’t think this was unreasonable. Right or wrong, the law had been enacted. The government told Yahoo to comply. There was a hearing and Yahoo was ordered to comply by turning over the information. The fine was only invoked if Yahoo refused to comply with the decision.

I think a lot of people find this outrageous because they disagree with the broader issue of the government wanting the information. But suppose it had been some environmental issue involved. Suppose a company was dumping toxic waste in a river and there had been a hearing telling the company it had to stop. Would anybody be arguing that the company could continue to dump the toxic waste for another year while it was appealing the original decision?

I’d be more upset to find out the fines had been set so low that the company could afford to not comply with the law. That would be a case where money outweighed justice.

[garygnu]

No lawyer in the world was going to stop the US government from getting that data.

[Kobal2]

Well I for one am glad somebody on the US Gov. legal team knows his classics. In these days of dismal education and appalling general culture, imposing fines under the framework of Sissa’s Chessboard should be commended, not derided.
Of course, as per the story, he should also be beheaded for trying to pull that buuuullshit. But admiratively.