7 ms·

I wonder what the actual personal consequences are for someone going public that there is an NSL requested. I seriously doubt they'd destroy a major public com

by rdl 10y ago

I wonder what the actual personal consequences are for someone going public that there is an NSL requested. I seriously doubt they'd destroy a major public company with lots of employees/voters/users; fines, maybe, and going after execs, but the Government loses most of its power to threaten things once the act is done and everything is public. I think you win in the court of public opinion if it's a broad program like this (and IMO clearly unconstitutional). If it's an NSL about, say, an order to specifically target UBL, you probably hang in public opinion. If it's an NSL about, say, finding Snowden, you might be ok. This is an interesting check and balance vs. government overreach. I'd be a lot more comfortable with someone going public in a live press conference in DC (maybe releasing a key to a file which is pre-distributed), than someone running off to Russia or doing it anonymously, though.

mikestew 10y ago
It's an experiment that I would personally be willing to try were I a high-visibility C-level exec. Been to jail, not that bad, mostly just boring; and certainly the jail that CEO me goes to would likely be better than the jail the real me has been a guest of. But the kind of person willing to tweak the nose of the government doesn't usually get to be C-anything. As you point out, best to wisely pick your battle as you'll want public opinion behind you. And remember that as popular as she is, Martha Stewart still went to jail.
- compiler-guy 10y ago
  Chelsea Manning, who is imprisoned over something similar to this case, may have a different opinion on how nice jail is than you.
  - envy2 10y ago
    Chelsea Manning was imprisoned over something very different: she was a US soldier, not a private citizen, and she made public internal government documents, not a letter explicitly addressed to her. Different standards do (and, IMO, should) apply to leakers who are government employees or members of the armed forces with a security clearance and to private citizens who are not 'leaking' something but rather sharing something they did not explicitly and voluntarily (through a contract or NDA) agree not to disclose.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Also, if you disclose that you received a NSL, that probably means you at least read the thing you're leaking before leaking it.
    - wfo 10y ago
      And yet the non-military CJ system can be brutal and harsh. I'd imagine it's certainly possible the first person to disobey a NSL might be made an example of, especially depending on who is in charge of the executive branch at the time. You could be locked in solitary for years until you lose your mind. You could be assigned to prisons in such a way the authorities ensure you would be repeatedly beaten and raped. You could be indefinitely detained without trial or attorney -- the crime is national security related, after all. There is a horde of horribly nasty things that could be done to you even if you aren't military or security clearance. It's worse for the military, but it's bad enough for the rest of us. Perhaps unlikely, but certainly very scary.
- bambax 10y ago
  For one, it depends where you come from. If you earn in the neighborhood of $25M a year it's likely you will find jail less comfortable than your home. Secondly, breaking the law or even challenging NFLs carries a personal risk of going to jail, while silently complying carries almost zero personal risk, and a small risk of damaging the company's reputation if/when someone finds out. If you're not very strongly principled, the choice is really easy to make.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Bartweiss 10y ago
I've been wondering about this myself. Apple got a mixed response when they pushed back on the FBI, but certainly not a clearly negative one. Lavabit's rather alarming case earned them substantial respect in the tech circles that learned about the matter. Certainly whistleblowers have faced immense consequences, but they've been government or military employees engaged in major disclosures. To jail a 'captain of industry' for reporting that the government handed her a sheet of paper would be spectacularly bad optics, attacking a respected private citizen over an intuitively absurd legal mandate. I suppose the details of the account in question would become important. If the public can be persuaded that you blew up an important investigation, you probably lose all support; we've certainly seen the government disclose a surprising amount of formerly-secret material to turn public opinion against whistleblowers. Even there, though, you could test the gag order by disclosing the fact of an NSL without the content. If they can't show overwhelming importance, though? If it's just a cartel bust or a leaker or something similarly non-terrorist-y? I'm trying to picture the government bringing the hammer down on Cook or Mayer for going up on stage at a conference and unashamedly violating an NSL. It doesn't seem like a good fight to pick.
- rdl 10y ago
  Also committing to a "fuck NSLs, we'll just go public and take it all the way legally" stance upfront might deter NSLs in the first place.
  - dmix 10y ago
    The fact no-one has done this means the consequences must be absolutely devastating. Probably jail time for executives and potential financial collapse. Probably the only time an executive would go to jail for breaking the law in the US...
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      I remain unclear on the consequences. I don't think they're tested. 18 USC 2709(c) is what the government cites when they invoke nondisclosure. You win a prize if you find the consequences for violating that statute. Also, NSLs can be upgraded to court orders if the recipient is noncompliant. 18 USC 3511 discusses that: > the Attorney General may invoke the aid of any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is carried on or the person or entity resides, carries on business, or may be found, to compel compliance with the request. The court may issue an order requiring the person or entity to comply with the request. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt thereof. So they can upgrade to a court order and then hold you in contempt if you do not fulfill the terms of the court order. I am not clear if that includes the nondisclosure term. This is the closest I've ever come to identifying "what would legally happen if someone published an NSL?" Honestly, and I'm not extremely comfortable saying this and please do not get ideas, after a lot of research I don't think there is a federal punishment defined in legislation for doing it. Usually laws have a punishment immediately after them. As in, section A is what's illegal, section B is how to punish violations of section A. 18 USC 2709 and 18 USC 3511 don't have that, so I honestly have no idea what would happen, and I half wonder if the federal government doesn't either. (IANAL, etc)
nicklaf 10y ago
Is it possible that the board would simply remove the CEO in time for the government to have its way with the company, in hope of averting financial Armageddon?
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>I wonder what the actual personal consequences are for someone going public that there is an NSL requested. Under the Patriot Act its 5 years in federal prison for any individual who violates a gag order.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Can you cite that, please? I've actually read laws trying to find the answer to the original question and I came up empty. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12639809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12639809

by rdl 10y ago

mikestew 10y ago

It's an experiment that I would personally be willing to try were I a high-visibility C-level exec. Been to jail, not that bad, mostly just boring; and certainly the jail that CEO me goes to would likely be better than the jail the real me has been a guest of. But the kind of person willing to tweak the nose of the government doesn't usually get to be C-anything. As you point out, best to wisely pick your battle as you'll want public opinion behind you. And remember that as popular as she is, Martha Stewart still went to jail.

compiler-guy 10y ago
Chelsea Manning, who is imprisoned over something similar to this case, may have a different opinion on how nice jail is than you.
- envy2 10y ago
  Chelsea Manning was imprisoned over something very different: she was a US soldier, not a private citizen, and she made public internal government documents, not a letter explicitly addressed to her. Different standards do (and, IMO, should) apply to leakers who are government employees or members of the armed forces with a security clearance and to private citizens who are not 'leaking' something but rather sharing something they did not explicitly and voluntarily (through a contract or NDA) agree not to disclose.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Also, if you disclose that you received a NSL, that probably means you at least read the thing you're leaking before leaking it.
  - wfo 10y ago
    And yet the non-military CJ system can be brutal and harsh. I'd imagine it's certainly possible the first person to disobey a NSL might be made an example of, especially depending on who is in charge of the executive branch at the time. You could be locked in solitary for years until you lose your mind. You could be assigned to prisons in such a way the authorities ensure you would be repeatedly beaten and raped. You could be indefinitely detained without trial or attorney -- the crime is national security related, after all. There is a horde of horribly nasty things that could be done to you even if you aren't military or security clearance. It's worse for the military, but it's bad enough for the rest of us. Perhaps unlikely, but certainly very scary.
bambax 10y ago
For one, it depends where you come from. If you earn in the neighborhood of $25M a year it's likely you will find jail less comfortable than your home. Secondly, breaking the law or even challenging NFLs carries a personal risk of going to jail, while silently complying carries almost zero personal risk, and a small risk of damaging the company's reputation if/when someone finds out. If you're not very strongly principled, the choice is really easy to make.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Bartweiss 10y ago

I've been wondering about this myself. Apple got a mixed response when they pushed back on the FBI, but certainly not a clearly negative one. Lavabit's rather alarming case earned them substantial respect in the tech circles that learned about the matter. Certainly whistleblowers have faced immense consequences, but they've been government or military employees engaged in major disclosures. To jail a 'captain of industry' for reporting that the government handed her a sheet of paper would be spectacularly bad optics, attacking a respected private citizen over an intuitively absurd legal mandate. I suppose the details of the account in question would become important. If the public can be persuaded that you blew up an important investigation, you probably lose all support; we've certainly seen the government disclose a surprising amount of formerly-secret material to turn public opinion against whistleblowers. Even there, though, you could test the gag order by disclosing the fact of an NSL without the content. If they can't show overwhelming importance, though? If it's just a cartel bust or a leaker or something similarly non-terrorist-y? I'm trying to picture the government bringing the hammer down on Cook or Mayer for going up on stage at a conference and unashamedly violating an NSL. It doesn't seem like a good fight to pick.

rdl 10y ago
Also committing to a "fuck NSLs, we'll just go public and take it all the way legally" stance upfront might deter NSLs in the first place.
- dmix 10y ago
  The fact no-one has done this means the consequences must be absolutely devastating. Probably jail time for executives and potential financial collapse. Probably the only time an executive would go to jail for breaking the law in the US...
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    I remain unclear on the consequences. I don't think they're tested. 18 USC 2709(c) is what the government cites when they invoke nondisclosure. You win a prize if you find the consequences for violating that statute. Also, NSLs can be upgraded to court orders if the recipient is noncompliant. 18 USC 3511 discusses that: > the Attorney General may invoke the aid of any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is carried on or the person or entity resides, carries on business, or may be found, to compel compliance with the request. The court may issue an order requiring the person or entity to comply with the request. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt thereof. So they can upgrade to a court order and then hold you in contempt if you do not fulfill the terms of the court order. I am not clear if that includes the nondisclosure term. This is the closest I've ever come to identifying "what would legally happen if someone published an NSL?" Honestly, and I'm not extremely comfortable saying this and please do not get ideas, after a lot of research I don't think there is a federal punishment defined in legislation for doing it. Usually laws have a punishment immediately after them. As in, section A is what's illegal, section B is how to punish violations of section A. 18 USC 2709 and 18 USC 3511 don't have that, so I honestly have no idea what would happen, and I half wonder if the federal government doesn't either. (IANAL, etc)

nicklaf 10y ago

Is it possible that the board would simply remove the CEO in time for the government to have its way with the company, in hope of averting financial Armageddon?

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

>I wonder what the actual personal consequences are for someone going public that there is an NSL requested. Under the Patriot Act its 5 years in federal prison for any individual who violates a gag order.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Can you cite that, please? I've actually read laws trying to find the answer to the original question and I came up empty. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12639809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12639809