Our civil liberties lose this round

There's been a lot of talk lately about whether companies that do the government's bidding or ostensibly act on behalf of government officials should be entitled to immunity from prosecution for any wrongdoing.

President Bush has been pushing hard to give the likes of AT&T and Verizon immunity for their roles in any past and future eavesdropping on the American people. Lawmakers left the matter hanging when they went on recess last week.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined without comment to hear a case challenging the legality of Bush's warrantless spying program, in which telecom companies shared customers' calls and e-mails with the National Security Agency.

The American Civil Liberties Union had argued that the program violated people's privacy, but it was unable to provide specific examples because the administration won't divulge details of its activities.

I don't think I'm reaching when I say that most consumers would prefer that a court order or two be obtained before telecom companies hand over their personal communications to the government.

But when it comes to public-private canoodling, the most egregious case I've seen recently involved a San Clemente company, American Corrective Counseling Services, that worked with public prosecutors to go after people who bounced checks.

In contacting consumers, ACCS represented itself as actually being the district attorney's office, even though the cases involved may not have been vetted in advance by an actual prosecutor.

In return for its efforts, ACCS typically would be entitled to a $100 fee and as much as 60% of any fines paid.

ACCS represents about 200 prosecutors nationwide. According to the company's website, these include the district attorneys of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and Santa Barbara counties.

This month a federal appeals court ruled that ACCS could be sued over alleged violations of debt-collection regulations. The company had argued that it should be shielded from such lawsuits because it enjoyed the same "sovereign immunity" as a government entity.

Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine, rooted in early British law, that basically prevents anyone from suing a government entity without its say-so. U.S. authorities frequently waive the right so that lawsuits can proceed.