4 ms·

They probably do fight it. They're just not allowed to tell you that.

• quaunaut 13y ago
  But then why have your CEOs claim the complete opposite? They're not compelled to lie, they would only be compelled not to talk. Furthermore, I imagine the cost to fight something like this wouldn't be small- would it be so easy to have it lost in a company's financials?
  • harshreality 13y ago
    Why would the legal department itemize that? If there is such a program I'm sure the NSA has figured out a way to get the courts to keep everyone who knows about it gagged. How do you know what they're compelled to do? You're operating on the same principle as rsync.net with their warrant canary, as if that will actually work. I doubt it. In this case, the NSA would go to the FISA court, ask them to order Google to say that the program doesn't exist, and for good reason... not doing that could disclose the program, the existence of which is classified. The idea that you can't be compelled to lie is some Kantian ideal of a justice system. I don't see why the justice system that routinely puts people to death would be squeamish about telling people they have to lie. It might be too difficult, and too many people or resources might be involved to make it feasible to hide such a program, but that's different from saying that, as a matter of principle, you can't be ordered to lie by a court. Of course, the court order wouldn't say "you have to lie." It would say something to the effect of: "Your public statements must not mention, imply, insinuate, etc. the existence or potential existence of program X." No court is going to have trouble figuring out that failure to keep updating a warrant canary implies receipt of a secret warrant.
  • yuhong 13y ago
    AFAIK, I don't think Larry, Sergey, Eric, or Marissa (for example) have security clearances at all.