5 ms·

I meam it's just such a strange statement. Are they really equipped to judge what is and isn't "actually required by law"? Would they be morally obligated to re

I meam it's just such a strange statement. Are they really equipped to judge what is and isn't "actually required by law"? Would they be morally obligated to report the rogue officials illegally demanding information?

wyldfire 5y ago
It's not illegal for law enforcement officials to ask companies for records nor is it illegal for the companies to give it unless it's explicitly privileged (like medicine, religious/legal counsel, etc). The law enforcement agents asking for the info are not rogue. It's tantamount to interviewing someone who might have information about a crime. The difference is that it's so terribly easy to go fishing for an enormous amount of information and companies can legally just go ahead and comply. I think it's actually occurred in the past (many times?) which is why it's identified as an item of concern.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  If someone asked me to hand over access to a database with thousands if not millions of peoples PII, I would expect it to be "on the books", not just some fishing expedition. I would feel forced to hire lawyers just to validate the request. Fishing around would cause real harm to innocent bystanders. I understand the practicality of smaller scale inquiries, but at a certain size the rules really aught to change, no?
  - wyldfire 5y ago
    Well, yeah hire lawyers! > I understand the practicality of smaller scale inquiries, but at a certain size the rules really aught to change, no? shrug throw it on the pile of sorely needed legislative changes. The laws just haven't kept up with things.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > If someone asked me to hand over access to a database with thousands if not millions of peoples PII, I would expect it to be "on the books", not just some fishing expedition. I would feel forced to hire lawyers just to validate the request. Fishing around would cause real harm to innocent bystanders. In the US you may not even be given any choice in the matter. They just hand you a national security letter and you're forced to give them access to anything they want for as long as they want it while being forbidden from ever telling anyone (your customers, your shareholders, the press, etc) that it's even happening. The laws really need to be changed, but how do you petition government to give up so much power? Hell, the NSA has outright lied to congress about what they're doing so our lawmakers can't even know about the data collection going on until some brave whistleblower comes along who is willing to sacrifice everything to let us know.
    - samus 5y ago
      A agent with black sunglasses and a national security letter is a very different case from cops going on a fishing trip. It's a bad idea to ignore the former. But there is probably (IANAL) no requirement to answer to queries of the latter, unless they also have a court order.
    - rhizome 5y ago
      It's not and doesn't have to be an NSL, law enforcemnt can easily get a warrant via the third party doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
michaelmrose 5y ago
They would be liable to be required by law NOT to report that.

wyldfire 5y ago

It's not illegal for law enforcement officials to ask companies for records nor is it illegal for the companies to give it unless it's explicitly privileged (like medicine, religious/legal counsel, etc). The law enforcement agents asking for the info are not rogue. It's tantamount to interviewing someone who might have information about a crime. The difference is that it's so terribly easy to go fishing for an enormous amount of information and companies can legally just go ahead and comply. I think it's actually occurred in the past (many times?) which is why it's identified as an item of concern.

nixpulvis 5y ago
If someone asked me to hand over access to a database with thousands if not millions of peoples PII, I would expect it to be "on the books", not just some fishing expedition. I would feel forced to hire lawyers just to validate the request. Fishing around would cause real harm to innocent bystanders. I understand the practicality of smaller scale inquiries, but at a certain size the rules really aught to change, no?
- wyldfire 5y ago
  Well, yeah hire lawyers! > I understand the practicality of smaller scale inquiries, but at a certain size the rules really aught to change, no? shrug throw it on the pile of sorely needed legislative changes. The laws just haven't kept up with things.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > If someone asked me to hand over access to a database with thousands if not millions of peoples PII, I would expect it to be "on the books", not just some fishing expedition. I would feel forced to hire lawyers just to validate the request. Fishing around would cause real harm to innocent bystanders. In the US you may not even be given any choice in the matter. They just hand you a national security letter and you're forced to give them access to anything they want for as long as they want it while being forbidden from ever telling anyone (your customers, your shareholders, the press, etc) that it's even happening. The laws really need to be changed, but how do you petition government to give up so much power? Hell, the NSA has outright lied to congress about what they're doing so our lawmakers can't even know about the data collection going on until some brave whistleblower comes along who is willing to sacrifice everything to let us know.
  - samus 5y ago
    A agent with black sunglasses and a national security letter is a very different case from cops going on a fishing trip. It's a bad idea to ignore the former. But there is probably (IANAL) no requirement to answer to queries of the latter, unless they also have a court order.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    It's not and doesn't have to be an NSL, law enforcemnt can easily get a warrant via the third party doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

michaelmrose 5y ago

They would be liable to be required by law NOT to report that.