4 ms·

They can email those to you.

by setra 10y ago

ithkuil 10y ago
if emailed, what prevents you from leaking it (along with other recent content of your email inbox) claiming somebody hacked your email ?
- modoc 10y ago
  Fear of prison?
  - maze-le 10y ago
    You can get into prison because someone hacked your email account?
    - modoc 10y ago
      If they dig into it and decide that you did it yourself, as the parent suggested, then yes, you would have a serious risk of prison time for willfully violating the NSL.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      Did someone hack your email account? You would expect such a claims to be severely scrutinied (including seizing all involved hardware for forensic analysis), and if you'd be making a false claim while having disseminated the information yourself, that would be a crime by itself in this scenario.
- MacsHeadroom 10y ago
  More importantly, what prevents half a dozen email servers from leaking it all over the place? The notion that an NSL would be sent over internet postcard is laughable, whether or not it's true.
pfg 10y ago
I don't think sending an email would legally count as a served subpoena, at least not unless you somehow (at the very least, but I doubt that's sufficient) indicated that you're fine with that? I'm not familiar with how this is practiced in the U.S., but in many EU countries, "regular" email is essentially useless in a court of law, even more so for something like a subpoena which needs to be served in person.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  Email is definitely a valid way of serving subpoenas.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    No evidence of receipt. No witness.
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      And? Edit: Why the downvotes? cmurf certainly needs to elaborate as to why either of those would affect the validity of the thousands of subpoenas that have been served over email.
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        They absolutely affect the validity if people claim non-receipt. Subpoenaing cooperative people is easy - you use mail, or email, or whatever you want and they acknowledge the thing and respond. That's why email is common. The question is how things go when someone doesn't feel like playing ball. With email and not-signed-for letters there's no reasonable way to prove that the person saw the content. "Spam probably ate it." "It must have gotten lost in the mail." And so on. So hand-served (and signed letter) subpoenas remain relevant for when people are dodging you. The fact that many people do respond to email subpoenas doesn't relate to whether non-respondents can be charged for their failure.
        10y ago
halomru 10y ago
"I never received an email, your honor. I don't know what they are taking about. By the way, look at this cool statistic of how many emails get lost on their way from one mail server to the next"

They can email those to you.

by setra 10y ago

They can email those to you.

if emailed, what prevents you from leaking it (along with other recent content of your email inbox) claiming somebody hacked your email ?

modoc 10y ago
Fear of prison?
- maze-le 10y ago
  You can get into prison because someone hacked your email account?
  - modoc 10y ago
    If they dig into it and decide that you did it yourself, as the parent suggested, then yes, you would have a serious risk of prison time for willfully violating the NSL.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    Did someone hack your email account? You would expect such a claims to be severely scrutinied (including seizing all involved hardware for forensic analysis), and if you'd be making a false claim while having disseminated the information yourself, that would be a crime by itself in this scenario.
MacsHeadroom 10y ago
More importantly, what prevents half a dozen email servers from leaking it all over the place? The notion that an NSL would be sent over internet postcard is laughable, whether or not it's true.

pfg 10y ago

I don't think sending an email would legally count as a served subpoena, at least not unless you somehow (at the very least, but I doubt that's sufficient) indicated that you're fine with that? I'm not familiar with how this is practiced in the U.S., but in many EU countries, "regular" email is essentially useless in a court of law, even more so for something like a subpoena which needs to be served in person.

ryanlol 10y ago
Email is definitely a valid way of serving subpoenas.
- cmurf 10y ago
  No evidence of receipt. No witness.
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    And? Edit: Why the downvotes? cmurf certainly needs to elaborate as to why either of those would affect the validity of the thousands of subpoenas that have been served over email.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      They absolutely affect the validity if people claim non-receipt. Subpoenaing cooperative people is easy - you use mail, or email, or whatever you want and they acknowledge the thing and respond. That's why email is common. The question is how things go when someone doesn't feel like playing ball. With email and not-signed-for letters there's no reasonable way to prove that the person saw the content. "Spam probably ate it." "It must have gotten lost in the mail." And so on. So hand-served (and signed letter) subpoenas remain relevant for when people are dodging you. The fact that many people do respond to email subpoenas doesn't relate to whether non-respondents can be charged for their failure.
      - 10y ago

halomru 10y ago

"I never received an email, your honor. I don't know what they are taking about. By the way, look at this cool statistic of how many emails get lost on their way from one mail server to the next"