4 ms·
> We will not be releasing the usernames involved publicly or to the users themselves. Which is the most important part.
by tomjen3 3y ago
> We will not be releasing the usernames involved publicly or to the users themselves.
Which is the most important part.
- tptacek 3y agoThey're not allowed to release that. Edit I read 'chaps as saying there was an NDA on the subpoena, but apparently there wasn't, so this might just be flatly wrong.
- AnotherGoodName 3y agoThe NDA isn't the only reason you don't risk interference in an ongoing investigation though so regardless the basic point still stands.
- remram 3y agoEven in the absence of NDA, are you allowed to? Counsel has apparently advised them not to. Would it not carry the risk of being complicit to a crime?
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoDisclosing facts is not a crime.
- remram 3y agoThere are lots of situations in which disclosing facts is indeed a crime. You are answering my specific question with a nice sounding maxim which is obviously not true in general.
- rocqua 3y agoPerhaps there is no NDA on the fact that subpoenas were issued, but still an NDA on whom they were issued about? Limiting The scope of such an NDA feels like a plausible result of negotiations after a motion to squash the subpoena.
- dev_tty01 3y agoReleasing the user names would not be respecting the privacy of the users.