131–140 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how the law works. But my completely-unfounded guess is that whoever is supposed to authorize this and who is refusing would be the one convicted.
So maybe they ought to be anonymous: http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.
That's certainly the intent, but at this point NSL's are more of a drag-net approach. Rampant abuse is undermining it's legitimacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're talking about NSLs, they've been found constitutional for almost a year now. Still time to buy that first birthday gift! https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/in-a-reversal-ju...
Sure, I'm just saying that there aren't legal repercussions from violating an unconditional act.
This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies. While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel…
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…
Unlikely, but possible - and when you're the one making the decision to disobey, you have to consider it. I don't know what I would do in that situation, honestly.
I think the correct approach is not a gag order that makes it illegal to disclose an NSL, but that an NSL should be accompanied with an explanation of what it is for and what the stakes are. A presumption of good faith in the organization to act in best interests, but leaving the ability to disclose to disclose to the public if it is felt that the NSL is in the wrong.
Earlier 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…
The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.
They're running a major international media outlet over there, and they do have some pretty heavyweight responsibilities that come with that, even if it conflicts with their personal lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.
Yes, that could happen. But there's the Spider-Man Rule: "with great power comes great responsibility". They're running a major international media outlet over there, and they do have some pretty heavyweight responsibilities that come with that, even if it conflicts with their personal lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that could happen. But there's the Spider-Man Rule: "with great power comes great responsibility". They're running a major international media outlet over there, and they do have some pretty heavyweight responsibilities that come with that, even if it conflicts with their personal lives.
Its unreasonable to expect people to make life changing decisions based on nice sounding but ultimatley meaningless phrases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that could happen. But there's the Spider-Man Rule: "with great power comes great responsibility". They're running a major international media outlet over there, and they do have some pretty heavyweight responsibilities that come with that, even if it conflicts with their personal lives.
Its unreasonable to expect people to make life changing decisions based on nice sounding but ultimatley meaningless phrases.
Sure, it's unreasonable to expect this of people. It's also unreasonable for the government to expect they'll help in spying on their customers. It's also unreasonable for the government to do this in the first place.
Everything's unreasonable. Someone has to step...the...fuck...up. And the government has demonstrated it won't be them.
Who does that leave? Would it be better to kick back, admire the problem, and simply let things continue as they are?