National Science Foundation to help CIA spy on chatrooms

[Lew Wolfgang]

Lan Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:33:15PM -0800, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
> 
>>Lan Barnes wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:07:55AM -0600, JD Runyan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lewis Wolfgang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I just hope that I'm lucky enough to have MY information misused.
>>>>>There are Federal laws (Privacy Act) that hold not only an agency
>>>>>responsible, but the individual employee can be help personally
>>>>>liable.  Ka-Ching!
>>>>
>>>>I don't know if Ka-Ching is the best way to phrase the amount of money 
>>>>you will get suing your average GS employee.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This would be news to me. I was under the impression that close to a
>>>century of Supreme Court decisions had established that government
>>>workers were pretty much suit proof. If anyone knows otherwise,
>>>references please.
>>
>>Hi Lan,
>>
>>You might be right.  http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm says
>>that the agency is liable, while the employee may be subject to
>>criminal sanctions up to $5,000.  I wonder what the liabilities of
>>a priviate sector employee would be in a similiar situation?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Lew
> 
> "criminal sanctions" if you break a law, but it's almost impossible for
> a government worker to be judged as having done that short theft or
> murder. Lying, overcharging, denying benefits, incompetence, all are
> suit proof.

Read the link, Lan.  It's the Privacy Act of 1974.  It's a law that's
broken when privacy information, as defined, is improperly divulged.

Also, I just checked with the Legal Council department of one of
our large Naval bases here in San Diego and she said that an employee
"could" be held individually liable for divulging privacy information,
if the employee was not acting within his assigned duties.  Thus, it
depends on the situation.  Federal employment is not a general immunity.

Regards,
Lew