Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

#11

Post by dedward »

armored wrote: post #8

As a corporation that would like to resist any demands for my customers information & data stored on my servers what can I do? Currently the way the laws are written it is illegally in some cases even to notify the customer that they are being surveilled.

IANAL, but although you may not be able to tell the customers, you could chase up other legal avenues to contest the court order - even though you'd probably lose in the end (according to this doc at least) - and that's what the FBI is trying to avoid. Hence, they reassure the companies involved of complete confidentiality regarding their involvement to make the case go smoother.

Scummy, innit?

Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

#12

Post by ncarlson »

fleitz wrote: post #4

I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." If the grounds for challenge are baseless then a court will toss the case, but I think that would be highly unlikely. People have a constitutional right to be secure in their papers and effects and the court should be the one judging w…

> I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business."

I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which the Commerce Clause could be applied.

Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

#13

Post by [deleted] »

ncarlson wrote: post #12
fleitz wrote: post #4

I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." If the grounds for challenge are baseless then a court will toss the case, but I think that would be highly unlikely. People have a constitutional right to be secure in their papers and effects and the court should be the one judging w…

> I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which the Commerce Clause could be applied.

[deleted]

Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

#18

Post by cheez »

palish wrote: post #7
ramdac wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't have said it better myself. What I've witnessed is that companies are apt to lie down in favor of the FBI because building up a rapport with the FBI can be a good thing in certain business models. (don't ask). The DoJ is well-aware of this, I'm sure, and is only too happy to throw its full weight around.

Which business models are you referring to?

I've heard of someone through an acquaintance whose company gets something like $60 mill in revenue from one of those iffy agencies of the US. It's nothing to sneeze at.

Officially, I think it's called the "brown nose" business model.

Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

#20

Post by ramdac »

armored wrote: post #8

As a corporation that would like to resist any demands for my customers information & data stored on my servers what can I do? Currently the way the laws are written it is illegally in some cases even to notify the customer that they are being surveilled.

I can attest to this. I've seen these orders.
Post reply on HN