4 ms·
The comment you're responding to said > I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is,
by taejo 11y ago
The comment you're responding to said
> I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is, and follow that as best I could.
Of course, the law requires people to obey subpoenas as well as warrants, as the commenter would find out if they did what they said. The point is to follow due process, not that everyone has to become a lawyer and learn the fine distinctions between different types of writ.
- dtrizzle 11y agoI agree with you. My comment was more of a commentary on the unintended consequences of this: http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/ On HN and most places on the internet, most people support the warrant requirement for most or all digital data. I do too, in a sense, as I believe law enforcement shouldn't have unfettered access to a person digital info. However, as a defense attorney, I've learned that a consequence of the warrant requirement is that the defense has no legal way access to digital information during a defense investigation. In effect, a warrant requirement for digital materials means only law enforcement and prosecutors can access them. However, an accused person's attorney cannot.