5 ms·

I had wondered, if companies are ordered by the Government to hand over the data and have little to no recourse to prevent it, are they then liable? No doubt a

by nness 11y ago

I had wondered, if companies are ordered by the Government to hand over the data and have little to no recourse to prevent it, are they then liable? No doubt a number of people tried to challenge the companies liability in these matters after the Snowden leaks and I'm wondering if anything interesting eventuate from it.

bad_user 11y ago
> are they then liable? Of course they are.
- nness 11y ago
  Legally, I mean. What's the precedent?
  - ivanca 11y ago
    Internationally, maybe other countries will see this as a threat against their citizens who share information with these companies (because it is), and therefore accuse of treason to the local subsidiaries of those companies, and/or ban their products and websites. But maybe I'm just optimistic and all play ball, nevertheless the world hate against the US will keep raising and being rightfully justified until one day the heat may be too much.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      >the world hate against the US will keep raising And some day in the future there might be a single European candidate that may run on an anti-US platform. Or maybe not.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Not quite the same, but in the UK, secret orders to Matrix Churchill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq The Wikipedia summary is a bit limited, but basically the security services OK'd (and indeed ordered, I think) the company to ship weapon parts to Iraq past an embargo. However, nobody told the customs authorities, who spotted it and started to prosecute the directors of the company. Their only defence was their (classified) instructions from the MOD which it would have been illegal for them to mention in court. They might have gone to jail had the whole thing not collapsed publicly. In the US, it's quite concievable that someone could be ordered to do something by an NSL that is illegal.

by nness 11y ago

bad_user 11y ago

> are they then liable? Of course they are.

nness 11y ago
Legally, I mean. What's the precedent?
- ivanca 11y ago
  Internationally, maybe other countries will see this as a threat against their citizens who share information with these companies (because it is), and therefore accuse of treason to the local subsidiaries of those companies, and/or ban their products and websites. But maybe I'm just optimistic and all play ball, nevertheless the world hate against the US will keep raising and being rightfully justified until one day the heat may be too much.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    >the world hate against the US will keep raising And some day in the future there might be a single European candidate that may run on an anti-US platform. Or maybe not.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Not quite the same, but in the UK, secret orders to Matrix Churchill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-to-Iraq The Wikipedia summary is a bit limited, but basically the security services OK'd (and indeed ordered, I think) the company to ship weapon parts to Iraq past an embargo. However, nobody told the customs authorities, who spotted it and started to prosecute the directors of the company. Their only defence was their (classified) instructions from the MOD which it would have been illegal for them to mention in court. They might have gone to jail had the whole thing not collapsed publicly. In the US, it's quite concievable that someone could be ordered to do something by an NSL that is illegal.