4 ms·

> The govt comes by with a subpoena (secret, classified, or public) and requires Microsoft or the customer company to produce communication records that exist i

by DenisM 13y ago

> The govt comes by with a subpoena (secret, classified, or public) and requires Microsoft or the customer company to produce communication records that exist in a form that may be used as evidence. Failure to do so is best contempt of court and worst obstruction of justice. This assertion seems dubious - IIRC the law (court order or subpoena or whatever) cannot compel a company to disclose information which they do not have in their possession. What are your sources (and/or credentials) supporting this opinion? [EDIT] While we're at it, could you please also substantiate the following claim of yours? It doesn't look right either - if this were so, then emails would be retained indefinitely whereas we know for a fact that they are routinely and aggressively purged, except when explicitly held for discovery. >There is a prevailing theory that companies are responsible for employee actions, and failing to log is seen as unacceptable.

ds9 13y ago
I recall some court rulings here in the US that a company could be required to install new software to write log data to disk, once the court found out that it was available in memory. This is only a special case of "information which they [do] have in their possession", but shows that that rule goes further than one might think. I am concerned about another scenario. I'm working on a site where people can exchange messages they've encrypted at the endpoints, such that the participants alone have the decryption ability and the server does not (assuming drawkbox is mistaken in some of his claims). Will it be illegal to launch this in the US if the requested law is passed first? Sometimes in tax law, courts have held that because Congress was considering a bill, the taxpayer was on notice that something was going to be illegal, and then the taxpayer was unable to rely on it, even though it was legal when he did it. Besides, USG in recent years has proved to be unrestrained by legal barriers to anything it has demanded.
- DenisM 13y ago
  I think it's best to look for a lawyer to get specific advice. Black-and-white statements like "USG in recent years has proved to be unrestrained by legal barriers to anything it has demanded" only serve to cloud your judgement and blind you to the intricacies of the situation and your available options. You know it's not true.

by DenisM 13y ago

ds9 13y ago

I recall some court rulings here in the US that a company could be required to install new software to write log data to disk, once the court found out that it was available in memory. This is only a special case of "information which they [do] have in their possession", but shows that that rule goes further than one might think. I am concerned about another scenario. I'm working on a site where people can exchange messages they've encrypted at the endpoints, such that the participants alone have the decryption ability and the server does not (assuming drawkbox is mistaken in some of his claims). Will it be illegal to launch this in the US if the requested law is passed first? Sometimes in tax law, courts have held that because Congress was considering a bill, the taxpayer was on notice that something was going to be illegal, and then the taxpayer was unable to rely on it, even though it was legal when he did it. Besides, USG in recent years has proved to be unrestrained by legal barriers to anything it has demanded.

DenisM 13y ago
I think it's best to look for a lawyer to get specific advice. Black-and-white statements like "USG in recent years has proved to be unrestrained by legal barriers to anything it has demanded" only serve to cloud your judgement and blind you to the intricacies of the situation and your available options. You know it's not true.