4 ms·

Why should it be illegal? Isn't it akin to "right to remain silent"? Why the need to present any information to police unless it is asked by court. Assuming tha

Why should it be illegal? Isn't it akin to "right to remain silent"? Why the need to present any information to police unless it is asked by court. Assuming that they didn't delete the data, just moved it to somewhere safe where it couldn't directly be taken away. We had a raid in one of my previous company due to copyright violation due to a user uploaded content. Authorities came in to take in all the codebase, reports and even employee devices. Basically once given court permission, police would try to collect all the unrelated things which could be taken in the permission, so that they could extort you later.

LunaSea 2y ago
It can be destruction of evidence, which is illegal.
- staticautomatic 2y ago
  Unless it wasn’t destroyed, in which case it might be interring with an investigation, which is probably also illegal in France.
  - Algent 2y ago
    It's definitely interference/obstruction at least of the raid itself yeah, but looking at the text and not being a lawyer I have a feeling it may be extremely hard to prosecute for something more substantial than a fine low enough for a french exec have it a as a guaranteed expense (bn€ in tax fraud vs a few k€ in fine). The law does also mention prison but it's not the kind of stuff that ever end up being applied for fiscal related cases.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > I have a feeling it may be extremely hard to prosecute for something more substantial than a fine low enough for a french exec have it a as a guaranteed expense I know nothing about French law, but this whole thing gives me “organised crime” vibes. In many jurisdictions the punishment dramatically increases when a crime is commited as an organised group whose purpose is to commit said crime. As i said i know nothing about French law so i don’t know if the same concept is present there, let alone if the letter of the law would fit the situation. But yeah i agree with you they won’t care unless they are sitting in a cell with the chance of sitting a lot more in a cell.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  Denying access to data that could still be specifically subpoenaed isn't destruction of evidence, it's a normal security measure. They still have the warrant to search everything in the office, but not the right to use those computers to access uber's entire worldwide infrastructure. I have no idea what french law says about it but I think it's morally fine and don't care that uber did it.
  - dh2022 2y ago
    I think this is an example of law lagging technology. A warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of a safe inside a house. Similarly, the law should be updated so that a warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of local computers. Local computers surely have valid certificates that allow the computers to connect to the mothership, right?
    - dmurray 2y ago
      Does a search warrant for your house give the police the right to search your car, if they found your car keys in your house? What about your neighbour's or your employer's car - perhaps on the other side of the world - if you happened to have those keys? To compel you not to tell your employer to change the locks, so the seized keys won't work? These seem like closer real-world analogies for what exactly a warrant to search someone's computer should entitle the police to do.
      - pjerem 2y ago
        Your analogy doesn’t work. Your neighbor is not you. $COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world and if $COMPANY wants to do business in $COUNTRY (which is not an obligation, they choose to), then yes, they have to entirely cooperate with $COUNTRY. If they don’t want to, they can still do business elsewhere.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I don't think a warrant to search an office should let them use the keys they find there on a company truck five miles away, either. Despite being the same company. (If it's in the parking lot then it's a maybe.)
hulitu 2y ago
[flagged]
- slater 2y ago
  No, it doesn't.
- pb7 2y ago
  Maybe it doesn't exist in lesser countries but it does in the US of A.
sensanaty 2y ago
Presumably the French police aren't randomly deciding on a Tuesday for no reason to check the company for proof of them being tax cheats without some court somewhere requesting it, but even if they were, we're talking about a company here, not a person. A person has the right to remain silent, it doesn't make sense for a company to have that same right. And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me, they paid off some politician (who just so happens to wield the most power in the whole country) to pressure him to get them to stop their investigation into their illegal acts? In what universe could that 2nd sentence be construed as anything other than slimy, corrupt behavior?
- ipaddr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - reaperman 2y ago
    I don't understand the Mr. Peanut reference.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33e75z83l0o.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33e7...
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  > And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me Why did you conclude that? There were some user uploaded pirated content in our platform. As far as I know, some media company won approval by some judge for a raid to discover the extent of piracy. It's just in the police rulebook to get everything during the raid where there could be pirated content, including employees laptops.
  - sensanaty 2y ago
    Sorry, I meant the 2nd sentence of the OP, where they mention Uber paying off Macron.
electrozav 2y ago
And if raids are court ordered?
dh2022 2y ago
I assume when the office was raided there was a warrant that would give police the right to inspect and seize property...
- spacemanspiff01 2y ago
  My impression was that they were trying to get remote access to ubers US servers/infrastructure/data? Might be wrong...
chollida1 2y ago
Because the government already has a warrant to obtain this evidence(they can't raid the office otherwise) and you as the company pushing this button are failing to turn over that evidence.
- charlieyu1 2y ago
  I guess locally encrypted files in my computer is a problem as well then
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    In many jurisdictions it actually is a problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law
- ExoticPearTree 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - echoangle 2y ago
    You have a right to not help them, but you can’t actively destroy evidence. Do you think it would be fine to begin burning documents once the police comes to you office?
    - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      Funny, but you actually can. It is their job to prove that whatever you destroyed was the evidence they were looking for.

LunaSea 2y ago

It can be destruction of evidence, which is illegal.

staticautomatic 2y ago
Unless it wasn’t destroyed, in which case it might be interring with an investigation, which is probably also illegal in France.
- Algent 2y ago
  It's definitely interference/obstruction at least of the raid itself yeah, but looking at the text and not being a lawyer I have a feeling it may be extremely hard to prosecute for something more substantial than a fine low enough for a french exec have it a as a guaranteed expense (bn€ in tax fraud vs a few k€ in fine). The law does also mention prison but it's not the kind of stuff that ever end up being applied for fiscal related cases.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > I have a feeling it may be extremely hard to prosecute for something more substantial than a fine low enough for a french exec have it a as a guaranteed expense I know nothing about French law, but this whole thing gives me “organised crime” vibes. In many jurisdictions the punishment dramatically increases when a crime is commited as an organised group whose purpose is to commit said crime. As i said i know nothing about French law so i don’t know if the same concept is present there, let alone if the letter of the law would fit the situation. But yeah i agree with you they won’t care unless they are sitting in a cell with the chance of sitting a lot more in a cell.
_bin_ 2y ago
Denying access to data that could still be specifically subpoenaed isn't destruction of evidence, it's a normal security measure. They still have the warrant to search everything in the office, but not the right to use those computers to access uber's entire worldwide infrastructure. I have no idea what french law says about it but I think it's morally fine and don't care that uber did it.
- dh2022 2y ago
  I think this is an example of law lagging technology. A warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of a safe inside a house. Similarly, the law should be updated so that a warrant gives the police the right to inspect and seize contents of local computers. Local computers surely have valid certificates that allow the computers to connect to the mothership, right?
  - dmurray 2y ago
    Does a search warrant for your house give the police the right to search your car, if they found your car keys in your house? What about your neighbour's or your employer's car - perhaps on the other side of the world - if you happened to have those keys? To compel you not to tell your employer to change the locks, so the seized keys won't work? These seem like closer real-world analogies for what exactly a warrant to search someone's computer should entitle the police to do.
    - pjerem 2y ago
      Your analogy doesn’t work. Your neighbor is not you. $COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world and if $COMPANY wants to do business in $COUNTRY (which is not an obligation, they choose to), then yes, they have to entirely cooperate with $COUNTRY. If they don’t want to, they can still do business elsewhere.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I don't think a warrant to search an office should let them use the keys they find there on a company truck five miles away, either. Despite being the same company. (If it's in the parking lot then it's a maybe.)

hulitu 2y ago

[flagged]

slater 2y ago
No, it doesn't.
pb7 2y ago
Maybe it doesn't exist in lesser countries but it does in the US of A.

sensanaty 2y ago

Presumably the French police aren't randomly deciding on a Tuesday for no reason to check the company for proof of them being tax cheats without some court somewhere requesting it, but even if they were, we're talking about a company here, not a person. A person has the right to remain silent, it doesn't make sense for a company to have that same right. And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me, they paid off some politician (who just so happens to wield the most power in the whole country) to pressure him to get them to stop their investigation into their illegal acts? In what universe could that 2nd sentence be construed as anything other than slimy, corrupt behavior?

ipaddr 2y ago
[flagged]
- reaperman 2y ago
  I don't understand the Mr. Peanut reference.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33e75z83l0o.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33e7...
YetAnotherNick 2y ago
> And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me Why did you conclude that? There were some user uploaded pirated content in our platform. As far as I know, some media company won approval by some judge for a raid to discover the extent of piracy. It's just in the police rulebook to get everything during the raid where there could be pirated content, including employees laptops.
- sensanaty 2y ago
  Sorry, I meant the 2nd sentence of the OP, where they mention Uber paying off Macron.

electrozav 2y ago

And if raids are court ordered?

dh2022 2y ago

I assume when the office was raided there was a warrant that would give police the right to inspect and seize property...

spacemanspiff01 2y ago
My impression was that they were trying to get remote access to ubers US servers/infrastructure/data? Might be wrong...

chollida1 2y ago

Because the government already has a warrant to obtain this evidence(they can't raid the office otherwise) and you as the company pushing this button are failing to turn over that evidence.

charlieyu1 2y ago
I guess locally encrypted files in my computer is a problem as well then
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  In many jurisdictions it actually is a problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law
ExoticPearTree 2y ago
[flagged]
- echoangle 2y ago
  You have a right to not help them, but you can’t actively destroy evidence. Do you think it would be fine to begin burning documents once the police comes to you office?
  - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    Funny, but you actually can. It is their job to prove that whatever you destroyed was the evidence they were looking for.