4 ms·

Do any other countries have an equivalent to the UK's "super injunction"? This is where a court order says you're not allowed to talk about the court order itse

Do any other countries have an equivalent to the UK's "super injunction"? This is where a court order says you're not allowed to talk about the court order itself nevermind the topic covered by the order.

flir 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary That's probably a good starting point for a dive into that question.
- scott_w 1y ago
  I remember a lot of fuss being made about these but, as time goes on, I'm very sceptical they can work. Looking at the Afghan data leak reported earlier this year: courts can make it practically difficult for most of the organisation to even know they're subject to court orders! The person updating the website asks "have we received a court order?" and the person under injunction must answer "not me." The website author isn't lying, but the website contains incorrect information (as the result of a legally-enforced lie). You could ask your lawyer but, once again, they'd also answer "no we haven't" because answering anything else is contempt of court at best.
  - nerdsniper 1y ago
    I'd think the CEO would know, would they not? And the CEO could tell the person updating the website: "Let's go ahead and remove the canary, we don't need it anymore." --> "OMG, did we get secretly subpoena'd?" ---> "No, not yet, but I just don't want to run the warrant canary anymore."
    - scott_w 1y ago
      The only way the CEO finds out is if they're made privy to the injunction, at which point they become subject to it. Even an oblique hint could be a breach of the injunction. Be honest: do you think a judge is stupid enough to believe you had the injunction explained to you by your legal counsel then, in a totally unrelated incident, thought "oh, I don't think we need the warrant canary any more."
malnourish 1y ago
That's a key component of some specific forms of US warrants.
scott_w 1y ago
I imagine so. Bear in mind that the concept isn't particularly a bad idea, however they are very easy to abuse and the laws need to restrict them to where they're strictly necessary (and force the court to prove they're still needed). The Afghan data leak scandal is a great example of where it made sense to use a super-injunction at first but also where its application continued long past when it should have done for (frankly) political reasons. Lewis Goodall's reporting on this is pretty excellent and fairly balanced, in my opinion.

flir 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary That's probably a good starting point for a dive into that question.

scott_w 1y ago
I remember a lot of fuss being made about these but, as time goes on, I'm very sceptical they can work. Looking at the Afghan data leak reported earlier this year: courts can make it practically difficult for most of the organisation to even know they're subject to court orders! The person updating the website asks "have we received a court order?" and the person under injunction must answer "not me." The website author isn't lying, but the website contains incorrect information (as the result of a legally-enforced lie). You could ask your lawyer but, once again, they'd also answer "no we haven't" because answering anything else is contempt of court at best.
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  I'd think the CEO would know, would they not? And the CEO could tell the person updating the website: "Let's go ahead and remove the canary, we don't need it anymore." --> "OMG, did we get secretly subpoena'd?" ---> "No, not yet, but I just don't want to run the warrant canary anymore."
  - scott_w 1y ago
    The only way the CEO finds out is if they're made privy to the injunction, at which point they become subject to it. Even an oblique hint could be a breach of the injunction. Be honest: do you think a judge is stupid enough to believe you had the injunction explained to you by your legal counsel then, in a totally unrelated incident, thought "oh, I don't think we need the warrant canary any more."

malnourish 1y ago

That's a key component of some specific forms of US warrants.

scott_w 1y ago

I imagine so. Bear in mind that the concept isn't particularly a bad idea, however they are very easy to abuse and the laws need to restrict them to where they're strictly necessary (and force the court to prove they're still needed). The Afghan data leak scandal is a great example of where it made sense to use a super-injunction at first but also where its application continued long past when it should have done for (frankly) political reasons. Lewis Goodall's reporting on this is pretty excellent and fairly balanced, in my opinion.