4 ms·

There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations, often with massi

There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations, often with massive monetary penalties imposed for violations.

sschueller 8y ago
Apple with the largest pockets and very positive ratings would be the one that could make a stance against such draconian laws.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  Unless the fine is implemented as a percent of revenue, market cap or the like. Similarly, the US government once threatened to fine Yahoo $250k per day for non-compliance with PRISM. [0] As an aside, what do you think is draconian about such a law? It seems like there are reasonable arguments for why it would be in the national best interest to keep an ongoing investigation classified. In fact it seems like an unusually straight forward application of the cliche justification “for national security reasons.” [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925
  - sschueller 8y ago
    I have no problem with keeping the details of an investigation classified. The issues is that you can't even say there is an investigation.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.
    - java-man 8y ago
      I doubt that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." talks about Congress, not an executive branch. the latter can gag a person, or a company.
      - LurkersWillLurk 8y ago
        The First Amendment applies to all three branches of the government, not just Congress. The executive branch can attempt to obtain a gag order, but the 1st Amendment nonetheless places limits upon them. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
  - billyggruff 8y ago
    That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.
    - adventured 8y ago
      Which Yahoo shareholders would be irate about, and the Yahoo corporation could not trivially afford to throw away regardless. That would have destroyed about 1/4 of Yahoo's profit at the time. That would be bad enough, however the next step by the government would be to increase the fine amount, were Yahoo to hold out over time. Kick it up to $1 million per day and Yahoo would have folded no matter what. The problem is pretty straight forward: the government could push it as high as necessary to compel the result they wanted.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations I don't think the U.S. government can compel companies to lie. It can, though, request them to. If the NSA said "your servers were compromised by a state-sponsored scheme, and we'd like your co-operation in running counterintelligence operations" I think it would be fair for a company to say "yes". Particularly if part of the offer included help extracting infected hardware from said company's infrastructure.

sschueller 8y ago

Apple with the largest pockets and very positive ratings would be the one that could make a stance against such draconian laws.

chatmasta 8y ago
Unless the fine is implemented as a percent of revenue, market cap or the like. Similarly, the US government once threatened to fine Yahoo $250k per day for non-compliance with PRISM. [0] As an aside, what do you think is draconian about such a law? It seems like there are reasonable arguments for why it would be in the national best interest to keep an ongoing investigation classified. In fact it seems like an unusually straight forward application of the cliche justification “for national security reasons.” [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8305925
- sschueller 8y ago
  I have no problem with keeping the details of an investigation classified. The issues is that you can't even say there is an investigation.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  It is also a straight forward violation of the first admentment.
  - java-man 8y ago
    I doubt that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." talks about Congress, not an executive branch. the latter can gag a person, or a company.
    - LurkersWillLurk 8y ago
      The First Amendment applies to all three branches of the government, not just Congress. The executive branch can attempt to obtain a gag order, but the 1st Amendment nonetheless places limits upon them. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
- billyggruff 8y ago
  That would be less than a $100 million per year operating expendeture.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Which Yahoo shareholders would be irate about, and the Yahoo corporation could not trivially afford to throw away regardless. That would have destroyed about 1/4 of Yahoo's profit at the time. That would be bad enough, however the next step by the government would be to increase the fine amount, were Yahoo to hold out over time. Kick it up to $1 million per day and Yahoo would have folded no matter what. The problem is pretty straight forward: the government could push it as high as necessary to compel the result they wanted.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> There is plenty of precedent for the US government issuing national security letters (“NSLs”) containing gag orders for ongoing investigations I don't think the U.S. government can compel companies to lie. It can, though, request them to. If the NSA said "your servers were compromised by a state-sponsored scheme, and we'd like your co-operation in running counterintelligence operations" I think it would be fair for a company to say "yes". Particularly if part of the offer included help extracting infected hardware from said company's infrastructure.