3 ms·
> 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 viol
by 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 agoYes. That's what courts are for.
- wfunction 10y agoBut 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 agoAn unconstitutional act is void.
- rhizome 10y agoIf 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 agoSure, I'm just saying that there aren't legal repercussions from violating an unconditional act.
- techbio 10y agoIllegal repercussions then?
- paulddraper 10y agoUm, sure. If no one watches the watchers.
- moxious 10y agoPerhaps. 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 agoBut 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 agoI 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 agoSo maybe they ought to be anonymous: http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
- dannypgh 10y agoThere 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 agoWell 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]