
Facebook taps lawyer who helped write Patriot Act as new general counsel - zachguo
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/440085-facebook-taps-lawyer-who-helped-write-patriot-act
======
jakelazaroff
To those unsure as to why this is particularly relevant: the Patriot Act is
notable for drastically expanding the surveillance powers of the US government
[1]. I wonder what this lawyer will do at Facebook?

[1] [https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-
su...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-
surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act)

~~~
benatkin
It isn't relevant, though. The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support. Just
because she helped write it doesn't mean that she supports it more than other
lawyers – just that she's a talented enough lawyer to be working on such major
projects. It's the same as complaining about individual multi-millionaires who
optimize their taxes.

~~~
whytaka
> The PATRIOT Act had pretty broad support.

By whom? Congress, constitutional lawyers, or the people?

~~~
mdorazio
Sadly, both Congress and the people at the time [1][2]. It was full-on panic
mode in response to 9/11\. I don't remember much about the constitutional
lawyer side at the time. A couple years later the public started changing its
mind [3], though Congress arguably still isn't even close.

[1]
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313)

[2]
[http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm](http://www.sheldensays.com/debating_the_usa_patriot_act.htm)

[3] [https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-
ab...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/9205/public-little-concerned-about-
patriot-act.aspx)

------
sprayk
Any time I see arguments to effect of "lawyer X lawyered for Y, and Y is bad,
so lawyer X is bad," I remember an episode from Star Trek: TNG called "The
Measure of a Man," in which Picard is chosen to defend Data's right to self-
determination as a sentient being, and Riker is chosen to make the opposite
case for the character that wants to treat Data as a machine, a weapon that
can be reallocated freely like a Jeep or a rifle. Riker struggles with this,
but ends up giving the best case he can so the matter can be settled without
any doubts. Doing a bad job on purpose leaves room for doubt and summary
judgement, which is far from ideal.

I think the PATRIOT Act is complete bullshit, but I'm not going to hold a
grudge against anyone that worked on it, only those who passed it and continue
to vote to renew/strengthen it, who also refuse to listen to arguments against
it.

~~~
opportune
This doesn't convince me, because 1) in the real world there are often major
monetary asymmetries in law, meaning one team has access to much more lawyers'
time 2) your example is mostly irrelevant since it's not like the lawyer was a
defense attorney, she voluntarily wrote an oppressive law and then spent much
of her time afterwards defending/upholding it.

If you read the article you see that not only did she write the law, the Bush
administration gave her major credit for leading the patriot act project. How
is that at all similar to playing devil's advocate?

~~~
btown
There is also the argument that the PATRIOT Act was flawed not for its stated
intent, but for the nuance (or lack thereof) of its implementation. And the
designer of the bill is the one responsible for said nuance, especially
considering that she designed it at a time when it would have been political
suicide for many lawmakers to oppose it for its nuance. She could have taken
the opportunity to create something in keeping with civil liberties, and
instead she did quite the opposite.

Absent additional context, it is very reasonable to expect her to disregard
civil liberties in the remainder of her career.

------
SilasX
"How can we possibly form a legal case that justifies mass surveillance?"

'I think I know just the guy...'

Edit: I was going to pre-emptively delete this as a joke/low-effort comment,
but I think it's a tad useful in highlighting what Facebook "use case" this
lawyer would be good for.

~~~
newscracker
I don't see your comment as joke/low-effort in this context. Facebook has
repeatedly shown itself to be so morally bankrupt that such "jokes" reflect
reality, and aren't jokes anymore. With impending regulation that will attempt
to control and/or break up Facebook, this move is yet another sign that the
company has no soul left in it.

------
resters
Facebook is the defense contractor that is building America's Great Firewall
and social credit system, so it makes sense that there is a revolving door
with the authoritarian regime.

~~~
i_am_nomad
I’m not familiar with either of those two projects. Perhaps the latter is the
aggregation of numerous “good customer” scores, plus actual credit rating,
plus the no-fly list. But I haven’t heard about an actual program that
implements a social credit score that FB is implementing.

~~~
resters
Facebook's social graph and engagement data combined with data already
obtained by governments makes an elaborate social credit score easy to
generate.

As for the great firewall, Facebook has been in talks with lawmakers who want
Facebook to do more to prevent "fake news" which is another way of saying that
lawmakers want to use Facebook to control the news narrative.

So far, Facebook has been extremely complaint with both of these areas. This
new hire is further evidence that Facebook plans to support user privacy only
after offering the government plenty of reassurance that its interests and
patriot act powers will not be adversely impacted.

I've been concerned/cynical about Facebook's stance on this stuff for a while,
but this hire is really chilling. If anyone reading this hasn't read the
Patriot Act, give it a read. It is shocking both in how stupid and
technologically naive the wording is, as well as in its blatant disregard for
the bill of rights. It's definitely the most shameful piece of legislation
passed in my lifetime.

~~~
traek
I’d say it’s the media and general public that want Facebook to curb “fake
news”, more so than Washington.

~~~
resters
See the tit for tat between Facebook and lawmakers:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-
made-m...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-made-
mistakes-on-fake-news-privacy-1523289089)

Zuck is _losing on purpose_ here by admitting they screwed up, so that he can
pivot into a negotiating stance to determine what level of control government
will get. This is not all decided yet, it is still in play but this hire
suggests that some progress was made in the negotiation.

------
iscrewyou
Someone tell these yahoos that optics is a thing.

I expect the next statement to be about transparency and connecting
communities. Just like the last one. And the one before.

~~~
malloreon
for facebook optics is not a thing.

they know they have a stranglehold on people addicted to their products, and
advertisers who pay through the nose to sell things to those addicts.

Honestly, why bother with optics? No one's going to like the company ever
again except their employees, but no business or politician or organization is
going to not take facebook's call.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
Why bother with optics? Well, for one thing, presumably they still need to
recruit people once in a while (including people with lots and lots of
options).

~~~
newscracker
IMO, the kind of people who work for and who would join Facebook are the ones
who're self-selected to not care about morals or the ill effects of their work
on billions of people. So optics doesn't come into the equation for Facebook
to recruit people. Those who do care about optics would never even dream of
working at Facebook.

~~~
Kiro
You're exaggerating. What are those ill effects exactly?

~~~
FartyMcFarter
Consult the N apologies Zuckerberg has issued on things like privacy for some
examples.

------
adnanazadsg
I dont consider Facebook inherently evil and even their more recents f-ups
around user privacy and security I had attributed to incompetence of the
employees (anyone working at a large co would know - this is all very common).

But when they hire people like this, I dont know how to excuse them anymore...

------
javagram
Duplicate of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19725489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19725489)
which was discussed yesterday?

~~~
Jerry2
Unfortunately that story was sinkholed by mods and this one too seems to be
experiencing the same fate (it's dropping way faster than normal).

------
bitL
Tech people should get it out of their heads that the stewards of industry
follow the same virtuous passions that got these techies into tech in the
first place.

I became so disgusted by "leadership qualities" showcased in the past 3-4
years that I am now setting up multiple federated servers with all kinds of
FANG-functionality replacements so that the new generation of techies is still
allowed to dream about better world freely, instead of taking xyz-pill
everyday, turning them into cynics.

------
_bxg1
You'd think if nothing else their PR department would've caught this. These
headlines just write themselves.

------
dredmorbius
OT: What a pathetically annoying case of autoplaying, non-dismissable,
autoplaying video (mobile).

Completely destroys a decent story.

------
jarym
I thought rats are meant to flee sinking ships rather than board them!

Sorry - could not resist the joke!

------
rocqua
Am I the only one who read this title and immediately thought of a wiretap?

------
hsnewman
I for one don't let Facebook use me. This makes little difference to me.

~~~
criddell
Facebook probably has a lot of data on you regardless. Are you in any friends'
address book? Do you use a loyalty card at the grocery store? Ever walk in a
mall? Own a car? Pay property tax? Have a mailing address?

~~~
silversconfused
Futility is a terrible reason to stop fighting.

~~~
georgyo
100% but just not using Facebook is not a very effective strategy. And
thinking that not using Facebook protects you from Facebook could be
dangerous.

~~~
silversconfused
Legally, it does. If they use my information in a way that is not allowed, I
am not required to use arbitration. I can sue. Users cannot.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
Good luck with that.

