31 ms·

The law can compel you to not disclose that you were server a warrant but *in theory it cannot compel you to explicitly make a statement, particularly if it's f

The law can compel you to not disclose that you were server a warrant but *in theory it cannot compel you to explicitly make a statement, particularly if it's false I presume. *I say "in theory" because I understand that this was never tested in court and some big name law professors did not agree that this would stand up in a court of law. A judge would look at the spirit of the law that bans the warrant disclosure and consider that the entire setup of the warrant canary is aimed at breaking it. I tend to agree with this interpretation because any reasonable person would consider the whole design is aimed at breaking that law.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> judge would look at the spirit of the law that bans the warrant disclosure and consider that the entire setup of the warrant canary is aimed at breaking it The point of gag orders is to keep a criminal from destroying evidence while an investigation is underway. Having an individual warrant canary for every customer would defeat this purpose. A general canary doesn’t appear to.
feanaro 4y ago
The point is that the law is unjust, so why would people observe it? How does it serve the people to not be able to say you were compelled to share their personal information with what amounts to a bully?
brookst 4y ago
Courts are not supposed to look at the spirit of laws, but the letter. It would be a sad day for US justice if a judge ruled that every action was within the law but, because a reasonable person would conclude that the actions in aggregate were intended to circumvent a law, the defendant is guilty.
- ISL 4y ago
  How should a judge intrepret a typo?
- fmajid 4y ago
  (English) Common Law gives judges a wide latitude to decide, and in effect make law, as was the case with Roe v. Wade, in a way (Roman) Civil Law jurisdiction don't allow. Sometimes this goes in a liberal direction, sometimes the other way. I would not assume anything about warrant canaries, and would expect the FBI et al to get the judge who gave them a gag order to also issue a warrant canary falsification order at the same time. Most organizations would not have the werewithal to resist, or the fortitude of a Judy Miller or James Risen and their willingness to go to jail rather than reveal their sources (yes, I know Judy Miller is a warmongering sorry excuse for a journalist, but her stand in this respect is admirable).
  - brookst 4y ago
    Row v. Wade was not decided on anything like the purported logic making warrant canaries illegal. Roe v Wade found that the right to privacy includes medical decisions, or similar. That’s a far cry from a criminal court finding a defendant guilty because they achieved an end that was supposed to be illegal but which no actual statute made illegal. Also gag orders aren’t perpetual. If there were orders compelling businesses to lie, past examples would have come to light the same way we know gag orders exist.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> judge would look at the spirit of the law that bans the warrant disclosure and consider that the entire setup of the warrant canary is aimed at breaking it The point of gag orders is to keep a criminal from destroying evidence while an investigation is underway. Having an individual warrant canary for every customer would defeat this purpose. A general canary doesn’t appear to.

feanaro 4y ago

The point is that the law is unjust, so why would people observe it? How does it serve the people to not be able to say you were compelled to share their personal information with what amounts to a bully?

brookst 4y ago

Courts are not supposed to look at the spirit of laws, but the letter. It would be a sad day for US justice if a judge ruled that every action was within the law but, because a reasonable person would conclude that the actions in aggregate were intended to circumvent a law, the defendant is guilty.

ISL 4y ago
How should a judge intrepret a typo?
fmajid 4y ago
(English) Common Law gives judges a wide latitude to decide, and in effect make law, as was the case with Roe v. Wade, in a way (Roman) Civil Law jurisdiction don't allow. Sometimes this goes in a liberal direction, sometimes the other way. I would not assume anything about warrant canaries, and would expect the FBI et al to get the judge who gave them a gag order to also issue a warrant canary falsification order at the same time. Most organizations would not have the werewithal to resist, or the fortitude of a Judy Miller or James Risen and their willingness to go to jail rather than reveal their sources (yes, I know Judy Miller is a warmongering sorry excuse for a journalist, but her stand in this respect is admirable).
- brookst 4y ago
  Row v. Wade was not decided on anything like the purported logic making warrant canaries illegal. Roe v Wade found that the right to privacy includes medical decisions, or similar. That’s a far cry from a criminal court finding a defendant guilty because they achieved an end that was supposed to be illegal but which no actual statute made illegal. Also gag orders aren’t perpetual. If there were orders compelling businesses to lie, past examples would have come to light the same way we know gag orders exist.