3 ms·
>They especially can't compel you to break the law (assuming you set up some kind of situation where it's fraud/perjury/whatever to lie). They can most certain
by gte910h 13y ago
>They especially can't compel you to break the law (assuming you set up some kind of situation where it's fraud/perjury/whatever to lie).
They can most certainly hold you in contempt because you got your self in that mess.
>look at how email retention works.
Document retention policies are allowed because otherwise the civil court system would be prohibitively expensive (lawyers have to read all your email once you get sued basically). Once you get a court order that says to, you have to stop destroying email, etc, disabling your automated destruction systems.
The only reason to have canaries is to violate the terms of gag orders. Judges aren't sympathetic to that.
- Dylan16807 13y agoHold you in contempt for something you did years before the case was filed or the investigation even started? God, that's even worse than contempt of court for failing to say passwords under the fifth amendment. I'm pretty sure I have some truecrypt containers I've forgotten the passwords to, sure hope I never get arrested!
- gte910h 13y agoI think automatically breaking a gag order by a complicated mechanism is pretty contemptuous of someone trying to not get that information out? I am not saying they're not worthy of that contempt, merely that they don't care if they are, just if you're showing contempt for the process and violating the order
- Dylan16807 13y agoIt's contemptuous of the court if I set up the mechanism because I was going to get such a gag letter. But to say that a canary I set up a decade ago is contemptuous of a court filing made a month ago is ridiculous.
- gte910h 13y ago>But to say that a canary I set up a decade ago is contemptuous of a court filing made a month ago is ridiculous. No it's not: You show contempt for the idea they could demand you silently turn over information. It's seething out of your posts here on HN even. I don't think it's right they can do this, but I do think it's quite clearly preemptively raising a middle finger to the whole thing; it is "I cross my fingers behind my back so my swears don't count" type of stuff that judges don't accept and toss you in jail for. You don't get to outthink and out maneuver this crap: You have to beat it in the system.
- Dylan16807 13y agoRight, it shows extreme past contempt for the very idea that it could be possible, but this is in no way contempt toward the specific judge, nor must there still be contempt at this point.
- Torkild 13y agoLaws and ethics are rarely synonymous though.