4 ms·

Agreed, except when the government gets to make that subpoena a state secret

ARandomerDude 5y ago
With very limited use, even secret subpoenas can be a good thing, for example in a counterintelligence situation where you don't want to tip your hand to a foreign intelligence service. The problem is abuse of that system.
- post_below 5y ago
  Abuse of that system being a when, not if, scenario.
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    More like “how often”, or have we forgotten how much Obama tried to bury Snowden’s leaks?
  - akiselev 5y ago
    I'd postulate that given the scale of a nation state, abuse of any system becomes a when, not if, scenario.
- salawat 5y ago
  ...or to your own citizens, who you may be looking at as a domestic threat. Let's be clear There is no reason to assume that this type of thing is constrained to "just the type" the government can have their arm forced into admitting to.
webmobdev 5y ago
That seems to be recent thing (over the last decade or 2) with the US. The Supreme Court of India recently made these observations when the government refused to share certain information with it under the bogey of "national security": > "... In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following the procedure established by law under the Constitution ... > We had made it clear to the learned Solicitor General on many occasions that we would not push the Respondent-Union of India to provide any information that may affect the national security concerns of the country. However, despite the repeated assurances and opportunities given, ultimately the Respondent-Union of India has placed on record what they call a "limited affidavit", which does not shed any light on their stand or provide any clarity as to the facts of the matter at hand. > However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of "national security" is raised. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this Court should be circumspect in encroaching the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review. > The Respondent-Union of India must necessarily plead and prove the facts which indicate that the information sought must be kept secret as their divulgence would affect national security concerns. They must justify the stand that they take before a Court. The mere invocation of national security by the State does not render the Court a mute spectator" > ... We are not interested in knowing matters related to security or defence. We are only concerned to know whether Govt has used any method other than admissible under law ..." Source: Supreme Court Constitutes Independent Expert Committee To Probe Pegasus Snooping Allegations - https://web.archive.org/web/20211029130706/https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-security-cheque-dishonour-138-negotiable-instrument-act-184598 https://web.archive.org/web/20211029130706/https://www.livel...

With very limited use, even secret subpoenas can be a good thing, for example in a counterintelligence situation where you don't want to tip your hand to a foreign intelligence service. The problem is abuse of that system.

post_below 5y ago
Abuse of that system being a when, not if, scenario.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  More like “how often”, or have we forgotten how much Obama tried to bury Snowden’s leaks?
- akiselev 5y ago
  I'd postulate that given the scale of a nation state, abuse of any system becomes a when, not if, scenario.
salawat 5y ago
...or to your own citizens, who you may be looking at as a domestic threat. Let's be clear There is no reason to assume that this type of thing is constrained to "just the type" the government can have their arm forced into admitting to.

webmobdev 5y ago

That seems to be recent thing (over the last decade or 2) with the US. The Supreme Court of India recently made these observations when the government refused to share certain information with it under the bogey of "national security": > "... In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following the procedure established by law under the Constitution ... > We had made it clear to the learned Solicitor General on many occasions that we would not push the Respondent-Union of India to provide any information that may affect the national security concerns of the country. However, despite the repeated assurances and opportunities given, ultimately the Respondent-Union of India has placed on record what they call a "limited affidavit", which does not shed any light on their stand or provide any clarity as to the facts of the matter at hand. > However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of "national security" is raised. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although this Court should be circumspect in encroaching the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review. > The Respondent-Union of India must necessarily plead and prove the facts which indicate that the information sought must be kept secret as their divulgence would affect national security concerns. They must justify the stand that they take before a Court. The mere invocation of national security by the State does not render the Court a mute spectator" > ... We are not interested in knowing matters related to security or defence. We are only concerned to know whether Govt has used any method other than admissible under law ..." Source: Supreme Court Constitutes Independent Expert Committee To Probe Pegasus Snooping Allegations - https://web.archive.org/web/20211029130706/https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-security-cheque-dishonour-138-negotiable-instrument-act-184598 https://web.archive.org/web/20211029130706/https://www.livel...