9 ms·

That's good, but >Because of the gag order, I had to sit in silence, implicitly confirming the point in the mind of the staffer. Please. He could have easily

That's good, but >Because of the gag order, I had to sit in silence, implicitly confirming the point in the mind of the staffer. Please. He could have easily let her know about it without explicitly stating it.

dspillett 10y ago
Explicit/implicit doesn't matter, the gag order is still in force and is not affected by how you pass on information that should be gagged according to the order.
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  1. Say nothing. 2. They ask what's going on. 3. Stand up and leave.
  - gcp 10y ago
    As parent said: "not affected by how you pass on information". Highly unusual behavior meant to signal something is just the same as explicitly saying it. This kind of attitude won't fly in a court, they very much take intent rather than exact wording into account when ruling.
    - yAnonymous 10y ago
      There is no "usual" behavior when you're in a discussion and a gag order prevents you from continuing it, as it's not a situation you're used to. I'd actually consider what the author did unusual. What are they going to charge him with? Violation of the gag order by saying and doing nothing? That would only serve to ridicule the whole practice. Gag orders seem to do exactly what they're supposed to: They scare people into compliance. Are there actually any cases where someone was charged for breaking a gag order?
      - gcp 10y ago
        You're beating around the bush making up nonexistent loopholes or hypothetical situations because you don't like reality, but that doesn't make you right. You yourself said that "he could have let her know", yet he didn't. Clearly, you were able to understand just 2 posts ago that it was possible to imply the existence of the NSL OR ALTERNATIVELY avoid having to do so. He chose the latter. Congratulations, you'd don't get to do jail-time for impeding an antiterrorism investigation under the mistaken impression that law is a hard-coded logic system and judges are too stupid to understand intent. What are they going to charge him with? Violation of the gag order by saying and doing nothing? That would only serve to ridicule the whole practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary In September 2014,[18] US security researcher Moxie Marlinspike wrote that "every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a 'canary' you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something. Lawyers clearly disagree with you. Gag orders seem to do exactly what they're supposed to: They scare people into compliance. Are there actually any cases where someone was charged for breaking a gag order? Of course they do. Jail-time & heavy fines are typical for court imposed gag orders. I don't know of any examples of NSL gag orders being broken, nor do I expect you'll find any volunteers that want to find out.
        yAnonymous 10y ago
        It's funny that you talk about "non-existent loopholes", but acknowledge that there haven't been any court cases regarding such behavior. I don't think they ever want things like that to go to court, because proving that somebody gave away information implicitly can be very much impossible. The "scare" part is all there is to gag orders, as far as implicitly disclosing information is concerned.
        yAnonymous 10y ago
        While we're at it, I'd like to show another method of safely disclosing gag orders. Report the gag order stolen. Make a photo with a one-time camera and post it from an open wifi using Tails or another Linux live distribution. Shred the data, burn the order, dispose the camera. This can even be scripted easily to happen automatically when you're in range of the wifi, so you're not seen with the device. There are a lot of ways to safely disclose gag orders if you really want to, especially if you work in IT.
- nl 10y ago
  This is entirely true. It would have been interesting to see what action the FBI would have taken if a Congressional(?) staffer had become aware that the FBI's interpretation was different to the lawmakers. It is certainly possible that the FBI would have been reluctant to pursue persecution in this case.

dspillett 10y ago

Explicit/implicit doesn't matter, the gag order is still in force and is not affected by how you pass on information that should be gagged according to the order.

yAnonymous 10y ago
1. Say nothing. 2. They ask what's going on. 3. Stand up and leave.
- gcp 10y ago
  As parent said: "not affected by how you pass on information". Highly unusual behavior meant to signal something is just the same as explicitly saying it. This kind of attitude won't fly in a court, they very much take intent rather than exact wording into account when ruling.
  - yAnonymous 10y ago
    There is no "usual" behavior when you're in a discussion and a gag order prevents you from continuing it, as it's not a situation you're used to. I'd actually consider what the author did unusual. What are they going to charge him with? Violation of the gag order by saying and doing nothing? That would only serve to ridicule the whole practice. Gag orders seem to do exactly what they're supposed to: They scare people into compliance. Are there actually any cases where someone was charged for breaking a gag order?
    - gcp 10y ago
      You're beating around the bush making up nonexistent loopholes or hypothetical situations because you don't like reality, but that doesn't make you right. You yourself said that "he could have let her know", yet he didn't. Clearly, you were able to understand just 2 posts ago that it was possible to imply the existence of the NSL OR ALTERNATIVELY avoid having to do so. He chose the latter. Congratulations, you'd don't get to do jail-time for impeding an antiterrorism investigation under the mistaken impression that law is a hard-coded logic system and judges are too stupid to understand intent. What are they going to charge him with? Violation of the gag order by saying and doing nothing? That would only serve to ridicule the whole practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary In September 2014,[18] US security researcher Moxie Marlinspike wrote that "every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a 'canary' you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something. Lawyers clearly disagree with you. Gag orders seem to do exactly what they're supposed to: They scare people into compliance. Are there actually any cases where someone was charged for breaking a gag order? Of course they do. Jail-time & heavy fines are typical for court imposed gag orders. I don't know of any examples of NSL gag orders being broken, nor do I expect you'll find any volunteers that want to find out.
      - yAnonymous 10y ago
        It's funny that you talk about "non-existent loopholes", but acknowledge that there haven't been any court cases regarding such behavior. I don't think they ever want things like that to go to court, because proving that somebody gave away information implicitly can be very much impossible. The "scare" part is all there is to gag orders, as far as implicitly disclosing information is concerned.
      - yAnonymous 10y ago
        While we're at it, I'd like to show another method of safely disclosing gag orders. Report the gag order stolen. Make a photo with a one-time camera and post it from an open wifi using Tails or another Linux live distribution. Shred the data, burn the order, dispose the camera. This can even be scripted easily to happen automatically when you're in range of the wifi, so you're not seen with the device. There are a lot of ways to safely disclose gag orders if you really want to, especially if you work in IT.
nl 10y ago
This is entirely true. It would have been interesting to see what action the FBI would have taken if a Congressional(?) staffer had become aware that the FBI's interpretation was different to the lawmakers. It is certainly possible that the FBI would have been reluctant to pursue persecution in this case.