I wonder how many NSLs they're going to start getting because of all the rogue government agencies.
Twitter discloses national security letters
51–60 of 160 posts
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
Yes. That's what courts are for.
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, you make it messy for them and you do probably defeat their primary objective, which is secrecy.
How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet?
When the government shows up to force you to turn over the information, no violence is required, but you can make sure the newspapers are there when it happens, and that the knowledge of it happening is not restricted to a few execs, keeping key technical people in the dark (as happened at Yahoo)
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#54I have a related question:
Is there some kind of database anyone is keeping that helps the public figure out what information companies have been ordered to produce in the past, and what they have actually produced? (I don't specifically mean NSLs here -- subpoenas and any other things would all be included in my question.)
This would be useful in several respects, because it would not only provide a check on the government, but it would also provide a check on the companies. For example, can I be sure that if I delete something, and a company with my data claims it is deleted in 60 days, can I rely on it to be true? If the company has been ordered to produce such information in the past, knowing whether or not it has done so would seem to be the most foolproof way to figure out how much data the company retains or discards. Is anyone keeping such records publicly (insofar as the information is available)?
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#55Although they could have just sent it onto the intended target and gone quietly about their day, I'm really glad that Twitter made this an announcement. Do they have any kind of warrant canary system?
I was just thinking about this - what kind of system could work in these circumstances? Say someone had to press a button every hour otherwise an automatic public release gets sent - the government could simply imprison the person for not pressing it. Say no-one knew who is supposed to press it because of some system of randomness and crypto, then you just threaten the CEO with imprisonment for not dismantling the wh…
I think I missed the thread of this discussion. What would the press releases say? Under what circumstances would someone not be able to press the button?
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation. If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.
Well think about it ... if the investigation or justice proceedings were not completed, or the investigation didn't yield prosecution, thier names would not, and should not be revealed. So which is it? You want full transparency which would cause people to be unlawfully persecuted by the public? Or do you want a functional investigative justice system which protects the identities of the not-proven-guilty? I ask you…
He wants the Constitutional requirement, and the tradition of the separation of powers, to be fulfilled by having a Judge review and sign off on the search. That is all he wants, you are the one imagining insane things.
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
Yes. That's what courts are for.
But are there no laws that require you to abide by these kinds of orders and challenge them differently? Couldn't you be later convicted of not abiding by those laws independently of whether the orders were themselves legal/constitutional?
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is how twitter works - it doesn't show every tweet from everyone you follow in your timeline, it shows a subset based on what it considers most relevant.
That's why I almost never use the Twitter web site or their app. Too confusing. I stick with Tweetbot which still only shows the complete timeline in reversed chronological order.
I was not aware the app did that. I'm a little disappointed in the service to learn about this.
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
There may be additional penalities/costs for letting it get to the point where a court is involved, but yeah, seems like this falls under "due process of law."
Re: Twitter discloses national security letters
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, you make it messy for them and you do probably defeat their primary objective, which is secrecy. How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet? When the government shows up to force you to turn over the information, no violence is required, but you can make sure the newspapers are there when it happens, and that the knowledge of it happening is not…
> How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet?
Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual issue to court.