7 ms·

This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Int

by anw 10y ago

This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies. While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel they can side-step these checks and leave out the need to get a judge's approval for these kinds of things. A response from the Internet Archive (2016) also stated: > The NSL we received includes incorrect and outdated information regarding the options available to a recipient of an NSL to challenge its gag. Specifically, the NSL states that such a challenge can only be issued once a year. But in 2015, Congress did away with that annual limitation and made it easier to challenge gag orders. The FBI has confirmed that the error was part of a standard NSL template and other providers received NSLs with the same significant error. We don’t know how many, but it is possibly in the thousands (according to the FBI, they sent out around 13,000 NSLs last year). I wonder what kind of legal action could even be taken against this kind of treatment (being given wrong / outdated information on legal options)?

moxious 10y ago
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Before we applaud them too much, keep in mind they're also telegraphing that this behavior is continuing. It doesn't take much skill to read between the lines and see that this is an ongoing problem for them, there's just a lot more of it that's happened that they're not allowed to disclose yet.
- wfunction 10y ago
  > An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
  - jdormit 10y ago
    Yes. That's what courts are for.
    - wfunction 10y ago
      But are there no laws that require you to abide by these kinds of orders and challenge them differently? Couldn't you be later convicted of not abiding by those laws independently of whether the orders were themselves legal/constitutional?
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        An unconstitutional act is void.
        rhizome 10y ago
        If you're talking about NSLs, they've been found constitutional for almost a year now. Still time to buy that first birthday gift! https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/in-a-reversal-judge-now-says-national-security-letters-are-constitutional/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/in-a-reversal-ju...
        paulddraper 10y ago
        Sure, I'm just saying that there aren't legal repercussions from violating an unconditional act.
        techbio 10y ago
        Illegal repercussions then?
        paulddraper 10y ago
        Um, sure. If no one watches the watchers.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. I don't know. Seems really easy to say when it's not you on the receiving end. But I mostly agree about your other points I just have a hard time judging them too harshly for not wanting to risk their business and / or personal freedoms.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway91111 10y ago
    What is "just harsh enough" for you?
    - nperez 10y ago
      It's good that they're disclosing this, but they are not doing anything particularly brave. While it's understandable that they would choose not to put their business at risk, a true act of bravery would be to refuse the requests in the first place. ^ that is a medium harshness level, I think.
- jessespears 10y ago
  The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    Howcome?
    - oneubauer 10y ago
      I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don't know what will come of it.
      - apatters 10y ago
        That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.
        morgante 10y ago
        Do you think the government wouldn't throw Zuckerberg in jail?
        apatters 10y ago
        They might, but he'd have better odds than your average Joe (and certainly a better legal team). "With great power comes great responsibility" isn't just a line from a movie. Of course we can choose not to hold our leaders to high expectations, but that leads to a markedly worse world for the rest of us.
- JoachimSchipper 10y ago
  Twitter isn't outright defying the government, but they did spend millions on lawyers. Don't they deserve more freedom than implied by "cowardly"?
- aisofteng 10y ago
  While I agree with the spirit or what you say, that could backfire very poorly. Suppose that the NSL were sent as part of an investigation on someone planning some sort of attack, such as a mass shooting, and disclosing the NSL ends up exposing that and causing it to fail. The blowback would end up providing stronger support for secrecy. Unlikely, but possible - and when you're the one making the decision to disobey, you have to consider it. I don't know what I would do in that situation, honestly. I think the correct approach is not a gag order that makes it illegal to disclose an NSL, but that an NSL should be accompanied with an explanation of what it is for and what the stakes are. A presumption of good faith in the organization to act in best interests, but leaving the ability to disclose to disclose to the public if it is felt that the NSL is in the wrong.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  People who care deeply enough about civil liberties to go to jail for it are rarely the type to seek or acquire much power.

by anw 10y ago

moxious 10y ago

I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Before we applaud them too much, keep in mind they're also telegraphing that this behavior is continuing. It doesn't take much skill to read between the lines and see that this is an ongoing problem for them, there's just a lot more of it that's happened that they're not allowed to disclose yet.

wfunction 10y ago
> An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way. Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
- jdormit 10y ago
  Yes. That's what courts are for.
  - wfunction 10y ago
    But are there no laws that require you to abide by these kinds of orders and challenge them differently? Couldn't you be later convicted of not abiding by those laws independently of whether the orders were themselves legal/constitutional?
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      An unconstitutional act is void.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        If you're talking about NSLs, they've been found constitutional for almost a year now. Still time to buy that first birthday gift! https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/in-a-reversal-judge-now-says-national-security-letters-are-constitutional/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/in-a-reversal-ju...
        paulddraper 10y ago
        Sure, I'm just saying that there aren't legal repercussions from violating an unconditional act.
        techbio 10y ago
        Illegal repercussions then?
        paulddraper 10y ago
        Um, sure. If no one watches the watchers.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. I don't know. Seems really easy to say when it's not you on the receiving end. But I mostly agree about your other points I just have a hard time judging them too harshly for not wanting to risk their business and / or personal freedoms.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  What is "just harsh enough" for you?
  - nperez 10y ago
    It's good that they're disclosing this, but they are not doing anything particularly brave. While it's understandable that they would choose not to put their business at risk, a true act of bravery would be to refuse the requests in the first place. ^ that is a medium harshness level, I think.
jessespears 10y ago
The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  Howcome?
  - oneubauer 10y ago
    I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don't know what will come of it.
    - apatters 10y ago
      That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.
      - morgante 10y ago
        Do you think the government wouldn't throw Zuckerberg in jail?
        apatters 10y ago
        They might, but he'd have better odds than your average Joe (and certainly a better legal team). "With great power comes great responsibility" isn't just a line from a movie. Of course we can choose not to hold our leaders to high expectations, but that leads to a markedly worse world for the rest of us.
JoachimSchipper 10y ago
Twitter isn't outright defying the government, but they did spend millions on lawyers. Don't they deserve more freedom than implied by "cowardly"?
aisofteng 10y ago
While I agree with the spirit or what you say, that could backfire very poorly. Suppose that the NSL were sent as part of an investigation on someone planning some sort of attack, such as a mass shooting, and disclosing the NSL ends up exposing that and causing it to fail. The blowback would end up providing stronger support for secrecy. Unlikely, but possible - and when you're the one making the decision to disobey, you have to consider it. I don't know what I would do in that situation, honestly. I think the correct approach is not a gag order that makes it illegal to disclose an NSL, but that an NSL should be accompanied with an explanation of what it is for and what the stakes are. A presumption of good faith in the organization to act in best interests, but leaving the ability to disclose to disclose to the public if it is felt that the NSL is in the wrong.
pmoriarty 10y ago
People who care deeply enough about civil liberties to go to jail for it are rarely the type to seek or acquire much power.