The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.
“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
wouldn’t a law against murder also be punishing a specific individual or group?
If a law punished a specific murderer or group of murderers it would be, but not if it punished an entire defined class of murderers equally. Lawmakers generally describe the qualifications of a crime (e.g. “anyone who knowingly and willfully causes the death of another person”) and prescribe a punishment for anyone convicted of it, and then the courts determine whether or not individuals are guilty by whether they meet the qualifications laid out in the law. Bills of attainder are laws that define individuals or specific groups as guilty by identity, not qualification, which means they don’t get a trial and the judiciary doesn’t get to act as a check on the legislature.
I guess that is my confusion.
why would “legislation to be passed that criminalized the usage of personal data for surveillance” fall under this attainer scenario? seems very similar to “legislation passed that criminalized murder”…
I don’t think it would. Congress could criminalize the behavior of corporate surveillance, then prosecutors could charge any individual or company that engages in that behavior. It’d only be a bill of attainder if it was selective by identity (e.g. a bill that proclaims “the CEO of Flock is guilty of criminal surveillance and should be arrested”) rather than a defined criminal standard that applies to everyone.
No, but making it illegal to be named Garrett Langley and CEO of Flock would be
that makes sense. but I can still legislate which actions he and everyone else is capable of legally doing… e.g. collecting data to surveil members of the public.