A good barometer for deciding if proposed legislation is helpful or harmful: figure out who the law applies to first and who it applies to last.
Will it prevent their data from being collected? No. Do warrants magically seal data away from human eyes? No. Will contractors and administrators and bored people with access on the job have access? Yes.
Therefore, does it actually protect them from the force of the bill? Not really. Sure, the police couldn't use bulk collected data in a case against an MP without the PM's say-so, but what's to stop Boz Admin selling their porn history to a newspaper?
Nothing.
No, what is actually relevant about the exemption is the breathtaking naivety and shortsightedness of those in power when confronted with something they don't fully comprehend revealed by its existence. If they actually understood the Greek fire they're playing with they would not have passed the legislation.
It's up there with a president-elect saying "it's visually important for me to...", plainly echoing what a spin-doctor adviser said to him, equally revealing the small minds behind the great Oz.
The crushing nature of a surveillance state comes only in a small part from centralised orchestrated action. Most of it is crushingly mundane - an officer wants to boff your wife, so you are a pedophile and you divorce. The soviet's daughter got mud on her dress at your garage so the place is shut down for code violations, and mysteriously the soviet's son is running the place next week. Your neighbour who works at equifax doesn't like your face so your credit score goes down.
The more centralised the truth is the easier it is for dirty hands to rewrite it.
Our organizations don't reward the smartest, but those who gain the most power and sway others.
Any law they strive to pass will increase their power. That they seek to circumvent any law is a clear sign they fear it will reduce the power of those impacted by it. They don't have to be effective in their efforts to reveal the truth of the situation:
This law weakens those it applies to people and democracy.
And so both deserve to be at the bottom of a nose gaze.
See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-nex...
It isn't really.
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Congress wrote some very broad anti-fraud laws, never amended them, and left it up to the SEC to exercise its discretion on what qualified as such practices.
And it doesn't write the law, it writes regulation. Which, on this specific subject, it absolutely is supposed to under the law [0] (and if the law didn't specifically authorize the regulations and criminalize violations of them, the regulations wouldn't support criminal prosecution.)
[0] 15 USC § 78j, particularly subsection (b)
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm
> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b). Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5
Its very, very broad anti-fraud laws.
Incorrect. While most insider trading prosecutions are done under antifraud provisions of the law, and SEC rules adopted ubder that provision, there is also law directly limiting certain trades of certain insiders (e.g., 15 USC 78p).
> Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
Even to the extent that we're talking about the kind of insider trading that is prosecutrd,ubder antifraud provisions, this is somewhat misleading in that those provisions are themselves framed differently than the common law definition of fraud, it is not,that the courts have applied an expanded definition of fraud.
That's not an exception added because the specific law was onerous; it's a consequence of the absolute Constitutional immunity for all floor action in the Speech and Debate Clause, which supercedes any attempt to criminalize anything. Congress has no power to criminalize Congressional debate.
The insider trading one is more legitimate, however.
Now it seems hypocritical on the surface for congress to not play by the rules it sets for others, especially when talking about diversity in hiring.
But keep in mind how anti-discrimination law works in the US. Usually someone who feels they were denied a job because of their outward appearance will complain to a government agency, such as the EEOC. In some cases, they will also file a lawsuit, which the government may join.
One can imagine how much havoc a group of people could wreak by applying for congressional staff jobs, then suing when they weren't offered one. Discovery alone in discrimination cases takes months if not years.
I think in the case of government surveillance, it might make more sense to pay more attention to those inside government - who historically have been the source of most successful coups d'etat - than to the proletariat.
And one would think that a body such as parliament or us congress would welcome additional scrutiny -- at least to counter the perception that they are all crooks -- but such conjecture strays into political heresy, I fear.