7 ms·

I've donated. It's a very honorable thing to do, stand up for other peoples freedom in the face of personal losses and pain. Such an act should be supported and

I've donated. It's a very honorable thing to do, stand up for other peoples freedom in the face of personal losses and pain. Such an act should be supported and praised. Although there is a very long way to go, America currently seems to be on path towards East Germany or China style surveillance. ”Every man should know that his conversations, his correspondence, and his personal life are private.“ - Lyndon B. Johnson

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
”Every man should know that his conversations, his correspondence, and his personal life are private.“ - Lyndon B. Johnson But even professions that have confidentiality baked into their core (clergy, shrinks, doctors)* can be compelled to provide info to law enforcement. In some cases, they are legally required to report illegal conduct. *EDIT: not attorneys (for the most part)
- foxylad 13y ago
  Genuine question - what about legal client confidentiality?
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    You mean attorney-client privilege[1]? It seems that one is a bit more solid and harder (but not impossible) to break. But IANAL. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privile...
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Not attorneys. The law specifically protects them.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Right. If only Lavabit had been Snowden's attorney... and not just his email provider.
    - mcantelon 13y ago
      Interesting idea...
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        I thought the same thing as I typed that. But that would be an expensive email service. lol EDIT: It kind of sounds like this is a grey area for attorney-client privilege[1]. I'm sure someone could successfully argue that privilege does not apply here because a) "LawyerBit" is not acting primarily as an attorney b) Email being email, the communications are disclosed to third parties [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege#When_the_privilege_may_not_apply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privile...
        dublinben 13y ago
        It wouldn't have to be. You can legally retain a lawyer for as little as $1. Even at a dollar a month, it would be nice for a third party email service to enjoy attorney-client privilege.
        generj 13y ago
        What if the messages were only ever internal to the system? Or even constructed such that the lawyer was central to all communication. So client A contacts the lawyer to advise client B of X. The lawyer dutifully complies (perhaps in an automated fashion). Whenever Client A wishes to contact another party who is not a client of the lawyer, the lawyer is given a client lead from Client A. The lawyer emails (the only time when mail goes to 3rd parties) the party, inviting him to go on his retainer so he can advise him on Client A. While such a system would have to be automated, the system could delete any evidence of this automation, or at least plausibly deny specific instances of the automation. Thus, all involved could argue the lawyer was manually involved every step of the way in the process, which only ever occurred on the lawyer's system, and the client systems of his clients.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Actually, it varies from state to state (Just like doctor-patient) and, in fact, you could be compelled as an attorney to testify against a client in plenty of cases in plenty of states. In a lot of states, for example, you can compel an attorney to testify about future or ongoing crimes, but not completed crimes someone is seeking legal advice for. As an example, this is covered in california evidence code as section 956: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=950-962 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&g... "956. There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud."

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

”Every man should know that his conversations, his correspondence, and his personal life are private.“ - Lyndon B. Johnson But even professions that have confidentiality baked into their core (clergy, shrinks, doctors)* can be compelled to provide info to law enforcement. In some cases, they are legally required to report illegal conduct. *EDIT: not attorneys (for the most part)

foxylad 13y ago
Genuine question - what about legal client confidentiality?
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  You mean attorney-client privilege[1]? It seems that one is a bit more solid and harder (but not impossible) to break. But IANAL. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privile...
chris_mahan 13y ago
Not attorneys. The law specifically protects them.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Right. If only Lavabit had been Snowden's attorney... and not just his email provider.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    Interesting idea...
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      I thought the same thing as I typed that. But that would be an expensive email service. lol EDIT: It kind of sounds like this is a grey area for attorney-client privilege[1]. I'm sure someone could successfully argue that privilege does not apply here because a) "LawyerBit" is not acting primarily as an attorney b) Email being email, the communications are disclosed to third parties [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege#When_the_privilege_may_not_apply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privile...
      - dublinben 13y ago
        It wouldn't have to be. You can legally retain a lawyer for as little as $1. Even at a dollar a month, it would be nice for a third party email service to enjoy attorney-client privilege.
      - generj 13y ago
        What if the messages were only ever internal to the system? Or even constructed such that the lawyer was central to all communication. So client A contacts the lawyer to advise client B of X. The lawyer dutifully complies (perhaps in an automated fashion). Whenever Client A wishes to contact another party who is not a client of the lawyer, the lawyer is given a client lead from Client A. The lawyer emails (the only time when mail goes to 3rd parties) the party, inviting him to go on his retainer so he can advise him on Client A. While such a system would have to be automated, the system could delete any evidence of this automation, or at least plausibly deny specific instances of the automation. Thus, all involved could argue the lawyer was manually involved every step of the way in the process, which only ever occurred on the lawyer's system, and the client systems of his clients.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Actually, it varies from state to state (Just like doctor-patient) and, in fact, you could be compelled as an attorney to testify against a client in plenty of cases in plenty of states. In a lot of states, for example, you can compel an attorney to testify about future or ongoing crimes, but not completed crimes someone is seeking legal advice for. As an example, this is covered in california evidence code as section 956: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=950-962 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&g... "956. There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud."