9 ms·

Read the statutes. 18 USC § 1409(c), 18 USC § 1510(c) "knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibit

Read the statutes. 18 USC § 1409(c), 18 USC § 1510(c) "knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibitions or requirements applicable by law to such person shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined under this title, or both." My reading is you'd have to do more than change a web page to run afoul, specifically, you'd have to intend to disrupt an investigation or judicial proceeding.

e12e 13y ago
I believe an argument could be made, that having and maintaining such a canary in place, could be considered obstruction -- at such a time as the canary comes into effect. I.e. having it there is probably legal, using it as intended, probably isn't. IANAL etc.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Yeah but here's the thing. You run straight into two problems when that happens: 1. Are you going to be ordered to affirmatively lie about claims regarding your products? Is that protected by the first amendment? 2. Suppose you have a public case and win? Now everyone knows that canaries are protected and can be used to run around the gag orders. The question comes down to this: Who is more afraid of what? You of 5 years of prison or the government of losing this tool once and for all?
  - e12e 13y ago
    Oh, absolutely. Of course, that would be 5 years in prison after sentencing. Consider the fact that both Kevin Mitnick and Jeremy Hammond (allegedly) were threatened with the "revolving door" of never having their "final" day in court, spending an indefinite time in jail (as opposed to prison) and in cross-state prison transports. Now, they were accused of committing crimes directly (hacking/so called computer "fraud") -- so it's not quite the same thing (one would hope). The chilling thing about these laws, is that they're (allegedly) only used for secret "national security" stuff. So if you go up against that, you aren't that far from being held "in the interest of national security" -- and -- there might be an honest (or seemingly so) appeal to your patriotism thrown in there, for you to actively become an agent of national security (spy on your neighbours for their safety!). I don't think it is at all clear cut (how can we know how many of these law are even legal, if some of them are secret?).
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      As an interesting data point though (which works heavily against the government here), a petition for habeas corpus requires that you specify grounds for habeas, and facts supporting the grounds claimed, so as soon as you are arrested if you aren't promptly arraigned, you pretty much must have more details filed in public court.
      - e12e 13y ago
        Yeah, I agree that if you somehow become arrested, rather than unlawfully detained, the game seems to be stacked against the government. Now, in theory, if you're unlawfully detained, the game should also be stacked against the government...
        einhverfr 13y ago
        Unlawful detention is exactly what habeas petitions are for. If they arraign you, you can't file one. If they hold you without charges, that's when they come in handy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

e12e 13y ago

I believe an argument could be made, that having and maintaining such a canary in place, could be considered obstruction -- at such a time as the canary comes into effect. I.e. having it there is probably legal, using it as intended, probably isn't. IANAL etc.

einhverfr 13y ago
Yeah but here's the thing. You run straight into two problems when that happens: 1. Are you going to be ordered to affirmatively lie about claims regarding your products? Is that protected by the first amendment? 2. Suppose you have a public case and win? Now everyone knows that canaries are protected and can be used to run around the gag orders. The question comes down to this: Who is more afraid of what? You of 5 years of prison or the government of losing this tool once and for all?
- e12e 13y ago
  Oh, absolutely. Of course, that would be 5 years in prison after sentencing. Consider the fact that both Kevin Mitnick and Jeremy Hammond (allegedly) were threatened with the "revolving door" of never having their "final" day in court, spending an indefinite time in jail (as opposed to prison) and in cross-state prison transports. Now, they were accused of committing crimes directly (hacking/so called computer "fraud") -- so it's not quite the same thing (one would hope). The chilling thing about these laws, is that they're (allegedly) only used for secret "national security" stuff. So if you go up against that, you aren't that far from being held "in the interest of national security" -- and -- there might be an honest (or seemingly so) appeal to your patriotism thrown in there, for you to actively become an agent of national security (spy on your neighbours for their safety!). I don't think it is at all clear cut (how can we know how many of these law are even legal, if some of them are secret?).
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    As an interesting data point though (which works heavily against the government here), a petition for habeas corpus requires that you specify grounds for habeas, and facts supporting the grounds claimed, so as soon as you are arrested if you aren't promptly arraigned, you pretty much must have more details filed in public court.
    - e12e 13y ago
      Yeah, I agree that if you somehow become arrested, rather than unlawfully detained, the game seems to be stacked against the government. Now, in theory, if you're unlawfully detained, the game should also be stacked against the government...
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        Unlawful detention is exactly what habeas petitions are for. If they arraign you, you can't file one. If they hold you without charges, that's when they come in handy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]