Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.
I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.
Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer’s rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporation’s right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.
I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
Ah, so congress can just write hyper specific definitions that only apply to one company (as long as they don’t directly name said company). Got it, seems like great precedent to me.
According to some of these guys Congress could order everyone with the name Steve deported and that’s okay because we voted for them.
I feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future. I think technically Kaspersky and a few other companies could qualify with these terms.
I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.
But American, but that doesn’t sound right… whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?
I can see why you shouldn’t name an actual person, though.
Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employer’s rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporation’s right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.
I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyper specific to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
What are you referring to here? What occurred?