5 ms·

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 tha

by 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.
- moxious 10y ago
  Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, you make it messy for them and you do probably defeat their primary objective, which is secrecy. How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet? When the government shows up to force you to turn over the information, no violence is required, but you can make sure the newspapers are there when it happens, and that the knowledge of it happening is not restricted to a few execs, keeping key technical people in the dark (as happened at Yahoo)
  - wfunction 10y ago
    > How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet? Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual issue to court.
    - therein 10y ago
      But when dealing with a corporate entity, who do you go after? Since this sort of coercion seems to only work on an individual level, going after the entire corporate entity won't invoke the same emotional response.
      - wfunction 10y ago
        I don't know how the law works. But my completely-unfounded guess is that whoever is supposed to authorize this and who is refusing would be the one convicted.
        mirimir 10y ago
        So maybe they ought to be anonymous: http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
- dannypgh 10y ago
  There may be additional penalities/costs for letting it get to the point where a court is involved, but yeah, seems like this falls under "due process of law."
  - wfunction 10y ago
    Well that's what I mean, it's not like you can just wait for the court to serve you the order. If the additional penalty is that you'll end up in jail or something, then this isn't really realistic is it?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
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 moxious 10y ago

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.
moxious 10y ago
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, you make it messy for them and you do probably defeat their primary objective, which is secrecy. How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet? When the government shows up to force you to turn over the information, no violence is required, but you can make sure the newspapers are there when it happens, and that the knowledge of it happening is not restricted to a few execs, keeping key technical people in the dark (as happened at Yahoo)
- wfunction 10y ago
  > How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet? Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual issue to court.
  - therein 10y ago
    But when dealing with a corporate entity, who do you go after? Since this sort of coercion seems to only work on an individual level, going after the entire corporate entity won't invoke the same emotional response.
    - wfunction 10y ago
      I don't know how the law works. But my completely-unfounded guess is that whoever is supposed to authorize this and who is refusing would be the one convicted.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        So maybe they ought to be anonymous: http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
dannypgh 10y ago
There may be additional penalities/costs for letting it get to the point where a court is involved, but yeah, seems like this falls under "due process of law."
- wfunction 10y ago
  Well that's what I mean, it's not like you can just wait for the court to serve you the order. If the additional penalty is that you'll end up in jail or something, then this isn't really realistic is it?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

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.