6 ms·

Laws never said anything about what you stop saying, in this context.

• smcl 4y ago
  I think courts often encounter people who have clever interpretations of laws, but who then get a bit of a rude awakening when their "Air Bud" style workaround gets slapped down when it meets a surly judge who has no time for their shit. Obviously not a lawyer, so I don't know whether this is one of these, whether it's something yet to be tested in court or whether Warrant Canaries are already accepted as valid.
  • aliqot 4y ago
    You must be referencing a court case where a modern warrant canary has ended with the perp in jail. Who might that be? You prefaced with "I think", but spoke with quite steadfast certainty, surely this piqued your interest for a reason.
    • smcl 4y ago
      No, nothing specifically related to Warrant Canaries but some law podcasts I listened to - ALAB and Mic Dicta for example - have referenced this phenomenon a few times. It's usually a tech bro or sovereign citizen with a novel interpretation of a law that ends up failing when they eventually have to try to argue their case it in court.
      • brookst 4y ago
        Just because some legal strategies are batshit crazy sovcit nonsense doesn’t mean all legal strategies are. See: Apple vs FBI in San Bernardino.
        • smcl 4y ago
          True, and it's been elaborated elsewhere that these have already been tested in the supreme court. But you have to admit that without that precedent, it does seem a little bit cheeky - "oh the law says I can't do X, well it doesn't say I can't simply not do inverse(X)" :)
          • brookst 4y ago
            For a funny / not funny example, see the attempts to ban analogs of illegal drugs. The whole research chemical thing is a result of the need to legislate exactly what’s illegal.
        • jeltz 4y ago
          Sure, but warrant canaries sound like sovereign citizen stuff.
          • mcbits 4y ago
            Supreme Court decisions can sound like sovcit stuff when they reference English common law, the Magna Carta, etc. Warrant canaries are just intended to exploit a technicality. There are a lot of technicalities in law that authoritarians don't like.
        • tptacek 4y ago
          It's true, warrant canaries are not as implausible as sovcit arguments.
  • pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    Yes, I've seen this (in UK, but can't think off-hand of an example) where the judge says "yeah, no" to someone trying to be clever.
    • pc86 4y ago
      "I've seen this in a completely different jurisdiction but don't remember even a single specific" is not a particularly compelling counterargument.
      • bombcar 4y ago
        Especially since the UK has way more of a “legal precedent” style of law than the US constitutional system.
        • hgsgm 4y ago
          You mean "common law"? US Constitutional law is deeply based on "legal precedent".
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • smcl 4y ago
        I don't think this thread had the tone of an argument at all. If there were two people seriously butting heads going back and forth on something, yeah sure. But pulling a [Citation Needed] on some people who aren't experts but want to have a sincere and pretty civil discussion feels a bit much.
  • Tuna-Fish 4y ago
    The is substantial precedent that the US constitution prevents the government from compelling speech, litigated all they way to supreme court. This isn't some sovcit-level workaround, there is actual legal theory behind it. It is important to note that the more "low-effort" style of warrant canary, or simply posting a static page that says that you have not been served a warrant, is probably not safe. Taking the page down is possibly an action you can be legally prevented from doing. However, that's not what rsync.net is doing. They are specifically posting a new one every week, because no court or authority can compel them to post one if they don't want to under US law.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
      Then why does every food product have a "nutrition facts" label, mandated by the FDA, if said mandate is unconstitutional? Either some compelled speech is constitutional, or Nestle hasn't bothered to litgate it (strains credibility), or all the food manufacturers think that American consumers care enough about having the nutrition facts that they'd have a competitive disadvantage if they removed them (even less credible). Edit: My point is that "compelled speech" isn't the issue, it's "compelled false speech" vs "compelled silence", either of which infringes on the right to free speech in some way.
      • tptacek 4y ago
        Further, if this actually gets litigated, it seems pretty likely that the DOJ will argue that the government isn't compelling "false" speech, so much as the canary's owners deliberately created a situation where compliance with a lawful compulsion to silence would require them to lie; that they more or less "banked" a lie, and then tried to pin that on the government when it was time to make the withdrawal. (That's not to say this argument, or any canary argument, would avail; who the hell knows, should be our watchwords in this matter.)
      • thecrash 4y ago
        > why does every food product have a "nutrition facts" label, mandated by the FDA The FDA can't compel you to say anything you don't want to. But they can refuse to let you sell your product. The right to sell food isn't as strongly protected as the right to political expression.
  • account-5 4y ago
    I have to agree with you. Freeman of the land come to mind. I think the danger here is the interpretation of the prohibition on telling people you've been served with a secret warrant. Whilst you seemingly can't force someone to do something the fact that not doing that thing is effectively telling people you've been served a warrant is grounds at least to take you to court. I can only imagine this canary process being manual, if it were automated I'm unsure it could be considered speech (obvs: IANAL). Until tested in court it's up in the area.
    • aliqot 4y ago
      Comparing warrant canaries to sovereign citizens is disrespect almost to the degree of caricature.
      • account-5 4y ago
        I'm not comparing them, in that paragraph I'm commenting on the parents comment about people being slapped down by surly judges. That's why is in the first paragraph on its own.
      • smcl 4y ago
        I think you're taking non-US[0], non-lawyers speculating about US law a little bit too seriously. I mean it could be argued that we shouldn't even be commenting if we don't know, but where's the fun in that? It's Hacker News, not Lawyer News :) [0] - or at least I'm non-US
  • hooverd 4y ago
    Unfortunately surly judges also do things like impose a trial tax for daring not to take a plea deal. The legal system gets to play Calvinball.
  • _Algernon_ 4y ago
    If you force somebody (who's not even the defendent, just a witness in the case) to (cryptographially) sign a message of your own choosing, why not just take the shortcut of forcing the defendant to sign whatever confession you want them to? Much easier, quicker and cheaper than these fancy workarounds.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]