5 ms·
I am baffled by the fact that NYPD can avoid the determination of legality by withdrawing subpoenas. It seems like it would be in X/Meta/Alphabet's interest to
by xbar 3y ago
I am baffled by the fact that NYPD can avoid the determination of legality by withdrawing subpoenas.
It seems like it would be in X/Meta/Alphabet's interest to get the question in front of a judge in order to require warranted subpoenas.
- hex4def6 3y agoIf I were to send an illegal demand to someone (like say a threat of blackmail / extortion), can I simply "withdraw" the demand once it reaches court? Absolutely ridiculous.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> can I simply "withdraw" the demand once it reaches court? For the per se dispute, absolutely. That's what you went to court to get. If your demand caused damages, that's a separate controversy that isn't cured by withdrawal.
- Mathnerd314 3y agoDo lawyer fees count as damages?
- dylan604 3y agoJudge: How do you plead? Defendant: J/K!!!! lulz!!!!! Judge: case dismissed! <bang> It probably depends on how wealthy the defendant is (if an individual), or the size of the the org defendant represents. If you're a LEO type of org, then I'm honestly shocked the judge didn't just dismiss with prejudice from the off
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway2037 3y agoLEO? Lower earth orbit?
- ultimoo 3y agoLaw enforcement
- 8organicbits 3y agoLaw Enforcement Officer, specifically.
- john-radio 3y agoIt's just like pickpocketing in Skyrim; it's legal if you just withdraw.
- deely3 3y agoIf I remember correctly you can send illegal DMCA requests as many as you want?
- reaperman 3y agoFor patent trolls, the answer is typically yes. Though that’s not “illegal”.
- ajross 3y ago> If I were to send an illegal demand to someone (like say a threat of blackmail / extortion), The distinction is that blackmail and extortion are crimes. It's the act of sending them itself that is the crime, not the demand. If you withdraw it, it doesn't matter, because the crime already happened. There's no criminal statute here. The NYPD asked for something. Someone challenged it as being "not something the NYPD is allowed to ask for". The NYPD said "never mind, you're right". That's the end of the story. If you want the law granting the NYPD the power to issue subpoenas to be withdrawn or modified, the solution is to elect representatives to do that for you. Courts are just the backstop for this process, and an imperfect one.
- Terr_ 3y agoI think this may be confusing "without legal approval" with "prohibited by law". For example, I could type up a letter to my neighbor that he must paint his car blue because that's the law 'round these parts... However that wouldn't necessarily be a crime, it's just be dumb/wrong. That said, if a law was passed to make "knowingly or recklessly false warrants" a crime, that might be one way to approach the issue.
- throwanem 3y agoWhy in their interest?
- bediger4000 3y agoTo determine once and for all how to act when receiving this kind of subpoena, or to get police departments to stop sending them, whichever is cheapest.
- cosmojg 3y agoProcessing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money. Given that we're talking about fairly rational megacorporations, though, it's likely they've already decided that the legal battle would cost more.
- Scoundreller 3y ago> Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money. Takes me two seconds to throw out the junk mail in my mailbox. Sometimes I save it as firestarter. How is a “warrantless subpoena” any different? (Maybe it is, actually asking here).
- cosmojg 3y agoHow would you know it's warrantless without further time investment? It's likely cheaper and safer to blindly process any subpoena originating from an authoritative source than to request and validate proof of warrant. Of course, it would be even cheaper to never receive such a subpoena in the first place. Securing a ruling against their legality would help with that, but as I said, it's unlikely the ends justify the means for a rational megacorporation.
- Scoundreller 3y agoI’m guessing there’s some obvious telltale that there’s a warrant (signed/stamped by judge, possibly on court letterhead instead of police letterhead). Also possible to separate the streams of input. Maybe can’t force it, but having a “warrants” stream that gets priority triage and another for “other” that works a lot slower because it’s mostly garbage. Can create a shit list for those that abuse the “warrants” stream.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoIt's possible for a document to be submitted in error, in actual good faith. Not to say it was in this case, nor that we don't need more accountability for abuse, but there could be legitimate reason to skip this judgement if it's withdrawn appropriately. Especially when it's done by an organization without this history of abuse.
- avs733 3y agoBecause courts use mootness to allow law enforcement to escape criticism all the time.
- pfdietz 3y agoIt's not clear that will actually work. Courts are on to the trick of evading judicial review by rendering some issue moot, and there is precedent to work around it. For example, see the "Mootness" discussion in this recent 1st amendment case (Nutt vs. Ritter, 2023): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-nor-car-sou-div/115684460.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-nor-car-sou...