3 ms·

Your compliance with that order is not for that purpose. HOWEVER, your statement which was originally to generate sales went from being truthful to being untrut

Your compliance with that order is not for that purpose. HOWEVER, your statement which was originally to generate sales went from being truthful to being untruthful. So now that your warrant canary is false, you are making an untruthful statement supporting sales generation for your company, which is what makes it fraudulent; and in my mind at least, because you've been compelled to do so, that's conspiracy to commit fraud. I guess they could argue that you weren't compelled to continue operating. You could have shuttered your business. So in that sense, I suppose if they made that argument, the fraud would be on your head and they'd get off on that technicality.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> HOWEVER, your statement which was originally to generate sales went from being truthful to being untruthful. You made a true statement with the purpose of generating sales, and later a false statement with a different purpose. The fact that the two statements have the same content doesn't make the intent of one transfer to the other, or the falsity of one transfer to the other. The required mental state for a crime must connect to the required act, not just a generally similar act at a different time. (Of course, the government compelling your action by force means it cannot be prosecuted as a crime of yours, because when the government induces a crime you would not otherwise have committed by threats, that's called “entrapment”.) > and in my mind at least, because you've been compelled to do so, that's conspiracy to commit fraud. No, aside from the fact that you don't have a false statement made with the required purpose to start with, the fact that you are compelled by the government doesn't make a conspiracy. > I guess they could argue that you weren't compelled to continue operating. You could have shuttered your business. So in that sense, I suppose if they made that argument, the fraud would be on your head and they'd get off on that technicality. No, they’d get off because their power to issue and enforce non-disclosure directives with NSLs, etc., is an express power granted in law.
matt4077 8y ago
You should really try to learn from the well-reasoned explanation of why your initial hunch was wrong, instead of continuing to try to argue the point with increasing levels of obviously wrong grammatical and legalistic hairsplitting. Law is a system that, to a certain degree, depends on reasonable people employing commonly accepted rules of logic and teleology. It is not a programming language that can be “tricked” by superficial attempts at “being clever”.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sbov 8y ago
According to this argument, it seems like you don't even need a warrant canary. If you told your customers you would inform them of a warrant, and the government compelled you not to, under your arguments wouldn't that also be conspiracy to commit fraud?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> HOWEVER, your statement which was originally to generate sales went from being truthful to being untruthful. You made a true statement with the purpose of generating sales, and later a false statement with a different purpose. The fact that the two statements have the same content doesn't make the intent of one transfer to the other, or the falsity of one transfer to the other. The required mental state for a crime must connect to the required act, not just a generally similar act at a different time. (Of course, the government compelling your action by force means it cannot be prosecuted as a crime of yours, because when the government induces a crime you would not otherwise have committed by threats, that's called “entrapment”.) > and in my mind at least, because you've been compelled to do so, that's conspiracy to commit fraud. No, aside from the fact that you don't have a false statement made with the required purpose to start with, the fact that you are compelled by the government doesn't make a conspiracy. > I guess they could argue that you weren't compelled to continue operating. You could have shuttered your business. So in that sense, I suppose if they made that argument, the fraud would be on your head and they'd get off on that technicality. No, they’d get off because their power to issue and enforce non-disclosure directives with NSLs, etc., is an express power granted in law.

matt4077 8y ago

You should really try to learn from the well-reasoned explanation of why your initial hunch was wrong, instead of continuing to try to argue the point with increasing levels of obviously wrong grammatical and legalistic hairsplitting. Law is a system that, to a certain degree, depends on reasonable people employing commonly accepted rules of logic and teleology. It is not a programming language that can be “tricked” by superficial attempts at “being clever”.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sbov 8y ago

According to this argument, it seems like you don't even need a warrant canary. If you told your customers you would inform them of a warrant, and the government compelled you not to, under your arguments wouldn't that also be conspiracy to commit fraud?