4 ms·

If I may restate this slightly: > Subpoenas are the only mechanism by which prosecutors are able to test the waters to confirm/deny whether they can demand pro

If I may restate this slightly: > Subpoenas are the only mechanism by which prosecutors are able to test the waters to confirm/deny whether they can demand production of this data I think many people fail to appreciate the importance of setting a precedent in the courts. Maybe this is because our legislators have been shirking responsibility for decades and pushing what should be their work off onto the executive and judicial branches, but regardless this is where we are today: If a demand like this is not challenged in court then nobody knows whether it's legal or not. *This is the process by which we learn whether Signal's implementation is allowed in our country.* It may seem clear to you what the right answer should be, but until its tested it's not clear to our government.

billytetrud 6y ago
This is the problem with the common law system. It's a haphazard set of poking and prodding where written law is less than half the story. We really need to switch to a civil law system in this country.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This is the problem with the common law system. It's a haphazard set of poking and prodding where written law is less than half the story Except that written law is the whole story. (Precedential court decisions are, after all, not transmitted as oral history.)
  - tekknik 6y ago
    This is absolutely not true, the easiest example being the second amendment.
- ska 6y ago
  > We really need to switch to a civil law system in this country. "pure" versions of either don't work - it's more like a spectrum. Unfortunately moving to more legislative emphasis than case law only works if you have an efficient legislative process to update. If that's too adversarial, you get the worst of both worlds.
  - billytetrud 6y ago
    I actually kind of don't agree. Even in our system, legislation is far more powerful than judicial. Fixing the legislative system is imperative regardless of judicial system
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I think I'll take my chances with common law.
md_ 6y ago
This doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s no precedential issue here. Law enforcement can and routinely do demand such data, and in the case of other services they receive it. The only news here is that Signal can’t produce much of it because they don’t have it. Signal is in fact complying with the subpoena. They’re not challenging anything in court.

billytetrud 6y ago

This is the problem with the common law system. It's a haphazard set of poking and prodding where written law is less than half the story. We really need to switch to a civil law system in this country.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> This is the problem with the common law system. It's a haphazard set of poking and prodding where written law is less than half the story Except that written law is the whole story. (Precedential court decisions are, after all, not transmitted as oral history.)
- tekknik 6y ago
  This is absolutely not true, the easiest example being the second amendment.
ska 6y ago
> We really need to switch to a civil law system in this country. "pure" versions of either don't work - it's more like a spectrum. Unfortunately moving to more legislative emphasis than case law only works if you have an efficient legislative process to update. If that's too adversarial, you get the worst of both worlds.
- billytetrud 6y ago
  I actually kind of don't agree. Even in our system, legislation is far more powerful than judicial. Fixing the legislative system is imperative regardless of judicial system
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I think I'll take my chances with common law.

md_ 6y ago

This doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s no precedential issue here. Law enforcement can and routinely do demand such data, and in the case of other services they receive it. The only news here is that Signal can’t produce much of it because they don’t have it. Signal is in fact complying with the subpoena. They’re not challenging anything in court.