I’m not claiming an actual promissory estoppel claim, I’m using the idea beyond the doctrine to point out the issue here. The telecoms relied on what the Feds told them. You guys seem to think that the telecoms should have known better, or had an affirmative duty to tell the government to go pound sand. I don’t think that’s fair, especially given the environment back then.

And we still don’t have any proof of anyone actually being damaged here, either. This whole issue, at least to me, is much ado about nothing.

Your criticism is with the government, not the telecoms.

I understand that this is protection from civil liability. It is indemnification for civil liability that arises from criminal acts. And where in the heck is the Promissory Estoppel claim here? Was I asleep in both Torts and Contracts long enough to miss the part of the law were the reasonable reliance of a third party on the statements of another prevented me from recovering from the 3rd party if they damaged me?

Not since Nixon has extralegal nonsense like that trickled out of the Oval Office.

You’re still missing the point – I don’t believe that the immunity has anything to do with criminal acts. It has to do with civil liability. The cost of the litigation aside, there’s an issue of promissory estoppel here, more than anything else. The telecoms reasonably relied on the statements made by the Feds that what they were asking for was legal. Why should the telecoms be held accountable when it was the Feds themselves that caused the problem? They should be the ones you all are pissed at.

The right to privacy is in the penumbras of the bill of rights according to the Supreme Court. For instance, the right to not have soldiers boarded in your house is an implicit affirmation of your right to privately enjoy your home.

And since when do you think it is OK to circumvent the legislature?

The point that I was making is that it is just plain nuts to let corporations off the hook for committing of a criminal act just because it would be “costly” for them to engage in litigation to defend themselves. We don’t pass laws immunizing the Mafia for violations of RICO, do we? And I’m not talking about crimes like murder. I’m talking about things like mobbed up carting, where people might not know they are being harmed by fixed pricing. To use your analogy, a civil claim against a criminal organization shouldn’t survive a 12(b)(6) motion because it would be costly for the Gambino’s to litigate.

Unlike the 9/11 and asbestos cases, the damages that individuals will have to prove are highly speculative. I honestly can’t see how anyone can put a dollar figure on something like that. And if you can’t prove your damages (or even prove harm – meaning the invasion of a protected interest, and it will be hard to prove this given that no one really knows who was surveilled) you can’t make your prima facie case.

Having the pardon be a weapon in the president’s arsenal on matters like this would totally circumvent the legislature.

Further in articles like http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20080129.html

It is stated that retroactive immunity has been deemed invalid before, the most notable example being the 9/11 Victims Fund.

And the obvious constitutional issue, which I won’t weigh in on, is the Right of Privacy.