4 ms·

The government isn't allowed to force you to lie; they can force you to be silent. By updating this regularly it then becomes apparent when you have been forced

by Flenser 13y ago

The government isn't allowed to force you to lie; they can force you to be silent. By updating this regularly it then becomes apparent when you have been forced into silence.

dllthomas 13y ago
"The government isn't allowed to force you to lie" Is that actually the case?
- xradionut 13y ago
  There are variety of careers and situations where falsehoods are encouraged and necessary.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    For sure. But there's (potentially) a difference between being employed by the government in a role that requires lying and being forced as an ordinary citizen to lie. That said, I don't actually know about anything that prevents the latter.
- danielweber 13y ago
  If I set up a contract with you saying that I will not submit to any government subpoenas, and then the government subpoenas me, can I refuse, because "the government cannot force you to break contracts?" (The answer is No.) If you want to practice civil disobedience, do it, and be straightforward about it. If Rsync.net were really to try to exercise this silly clause, it would be a giant distraction from what I presume is their actual complaint.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I more or less agree with the second half of your post. Regarding the first part, I've seen a couple places the claim that the government can't force people to lie - I don't know of any support for this, but also haven't conclusively heard that it's not the case (certainly not from a lawyer). I'm highly skeptical, but wanting to know what support the people claiming this think they have. The fact that you can name another potential constraint that doesn't hold is irrelevant, isn't it?
dspillett 13y ago
> The government isn't allowed to Argument lost right there. As a UK resident my government is not legally permitted to take part in, or knowingly allow to occur on its territory, anything like "extraordinary rendition". "isn't allowed" made no difference in that case (and many other examples can be referenced for other governments including those of America) so we can't really expect it to in this or any other future case either.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  If it's legitimately the case that the government isn't allowed to compel you to lie, then they will have a harder time punishing noncompliance, which is significant.
benjohnson 13y ago
I know that the Government can force you to lie already - If you're American, go look at your milk container. It will likely say something like "No rBST Artificial Hormones" and next to it it will say "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows." That label is government mandated, and by law can't even be prefaced with something like "The following is Government mandated" or "We're forced to say." This is a lie, because other parts of the government (not the FDA) have found material differences in the milk between untreated/treated cows.
- leeoniya 13y ago
  i always thought something like this should be on there: "Product contains rBST - an artificial growth hormone banned from human consumption in the EU and other countries"
AnIrishDuck 13y ago
Can you cite any statutory or legal authority that states this? Because it strikes me as in the same vein as "a police officer has to tell you they're a member of the police"
xradionut 13y ago
They don't have to force you into silence, they can force you thru duress not to be silent. All that is needed is some sort of incentive or leverage. (Keep up the good work citizen or ...) If the actual system is robust enough to be a "dead-man" switch then you have to plan for "false positives/negatives" and have more than one person involved in the process in case of emergencies. This increases your social attack surface. Two people might be trusted if one is dead and didn't leave any evidence behind.
- Flenser 13y ago
  True, rsync.net state as much at the bottom of the page: "This scheme is not infallible. Although signing the declaration makes it impossible for a third party to produce arbitrary declarations, it does not prevent them from using force to coerce rsync.net to produce false declarations."
danielweber 13y ago
If you put a gun to your own head by setting up a situation where you will have to lie to your customers in order to comply with a court order, you aren't likely to get much sympathy. You can find these specific requirements for secrecy onerous and undemocratic, and I might even agree with you. But these "I'm not really violating the law" posts by non-lawyer geeks are boring. There are all sorts of reasons society can demand you not to make certain communications. If you stop communicating to make the communication, you are still doing the communication in violation of the law.

by Flenser 13y ago

The government isn't allowed to force you to lie; they can force you to be silent. By updating this regularly it then becomes apparent when you have been forced into silence.

dllthomas 13y ago

"The government isn't allowed to force you to lie" Is that actually the case?

xradionut 13y ago
There are variety of careers and situations where falsehoods are encouraged and necessary.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  For sure. But there's (potentially) a difference between being employed by the government in a role that requires lying and being forced as an ordinary citizen to lie. That said, I don't actually know about anything that prevents the latter.
danielweber 13y ago
If I set up a contract with you saying that I will not submit to any government subpoenas, and then the government subpoenas me, can I refuse, because "the government cannot force you to break contracts?" (The answer is No.) If you want to practice civil disobedience, do it, and be straightforward about it. If Rsync.net were really to try to exercise this silly clause, it would be a giant distraction from what I presume is their actual complaint.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I more or less agree with the second half of your post. Regarding the first part, I've seen a couple places the claim that the government can't force people to lie - I don't know of any support for this, but also haven't conclusively heard that it's not the case (certainly not from a lawyer). I'm highly skeptical, but wanting to know what support the people claiming this think they have. The fact that you can name another potential constraint that doesn't hold is irrelevant, isn't it?

dspillett 13y ago

> The government isn't allowed to Argument lost right there. As a UK resident my government is not legally permitted to take part in, or knowingly allow to occur on its territory, anything like "extraordinary rendition". "isn't allowed" made no difference in that case (and many other examples can be referenced for other governments including those of America) so we can't really expect it to in this or any other future case either.

dllthomas 13y ago
If it's legitimately the case that the government isn't allowed to compel you to lie, then they will have a harder time punishing noncompliance, which is significant.

benjohnson 13y ago

I know that the Government can force you to lie already - If you're American, go look at your milk container. It will likely say something like "No rBST Artificial Hormones" and next to it it will say "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows." That label is government mandated, and by law can't even be prefaced with something like "The following is Government mandated" or "We're forced to say." This is a lie, because other parts of the government (not the FDA) have found material differences in the milk between untreated/treated cows.

leeoniya 13y ago
i always thought something like this should be on there: "Product contains rBST - an artificial growth hormone banned from human consumption in the EU and other countries"

AnIrishDuck 13y ago

Can you cite any statutory or legal authority that states this? Because it strikes me as in the same vein as "a police officer has to tell you they're a member of the police"

xradionut 13y ago

They don't have to force you into silence, they can force you thru duress not to be silent. All that is needed is some sort of incentive or leverage. (Keep up the good work citizen or ...) If the actual system is robust enough to be a "dead-man" switch then you have to plan for "false positives/negatives" and have more than one person involved in the process in case of emergencies. This increases your social attack surface. Two people might be trusted if one is dead and didn't leave any evidence behind.

Flenser 13y ago
True, rsync.net state as much at the bottom of the page: "This scheme is not infallible. Although signing the declaration makes it impossible for a third party to produce arbitrary declarations, it does not prevent them from using force to coerce rsync.net to produce false declarations."

danielweber 13y ago

If you put a gun to your own head by setting up a situation where you will have to lie to your customers in order to comply with a court order, you aren't likely to get much sympathy. You can find these specific requirements for secrecy onerous and undemocratic, and I might even agree with you. But these "I'm not really violating the law" posts by non-lawyer geeks are boring. There are all sorts of reasons society can demand you not to make certain communications. If you stop communicating to make the communication, you are still doing the communication in violation of the law.