3 ms·

If the landlord uses identical locks on all the apartment doors, he can't turn around and complain that turning over the key to the apartment being investigated

If the landlord uses identical locks on all the apartment doors, he can't turn around and complain that turning over the key to the apartment being investigated would open all the doors. Why? When setting up a business, are you required to organize it in such a way that in the future, the government can come along and perform a certain kind of search/and/or seizure? It that your obligation, failing which all of your customers must suffer? It's one thing to have a law that states the government can ask for things. But I haven't heard anybody argue that the law requires you to organize your affairs in such a way that you can comply with requests like this "cleanly."

bradleyjg 13y ago
>It that your obligation, failing which all of your customers must suffer? > It's one thing to have a law that states the government can ask for things. But I haven't heard anybody argue that the law requires you to organize your affairs in such a way that you can comply with requests like this "cleanly." Generally you don't have to set up your business in such a way as to comply with requests cleanly, though there are exceptions for certain telecom providers (not applicable here). But by the same token your inability to comply cleanly doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to comply. So our landlord hypothetical the landlord certainly is allowed to use the same lock on every door, but he still has to turn over the key when it is demanded. As for the collateral consequences to third parties the court will not assume that the government is going to abuse their access to search more than they are authorized to. That seems to be the biggest disconnect. The judge didn't think that the ability to decrpyt all the traffic was a pertinent harm because his order didn't allow the agents to look at it. Whether or not that's a reasonable assumption as a matter of fact is an empirical question, but it is certainly a reasonable, perhaps even compelled, one from a legal standpoint.
- raganwald 13y ago
  One of the reasons I Am Not A Lawyer is this: If the business is allowed to send its customers a form letter telling them that hey has given the master key to the government, I would understand the position that the interests of the other customers were reasonably safeguarded. If, for example, one of them was discussing some business and then suspicious trading occurred, she might ask whether a government employee abused the master key and was doing some insider trading on the side. But if the business is not allowed to tell the customers that their privacy has been compromised, I would not want to give the government the "benefit of the doubt" about their use or abuse of a master key. Trust, but verify, as they say. How does one verify when these security letters are handed out like candy?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> When setting up a business, are you required to organize it in such a way that in the future, the government can come along and perform a certain kind of search/and/or seizure? No you aren't required to, however, you are required to cooperate with legitimate searches/seizures even if the you have structured your business so that doing so inconveniences other customers unrelated to the target of the search/seizure. You can't structure your business in such a way as to make narrow searches/seizures impossible without inconveniencing unrelated customers and then use that as an excuse not to cooperate with otherwise-legitimate searches and seizures.

bradleyjg 13y ago

>It that your obligation, failing which all of your customers must suffer? > It's one thing to have a law that states the government can ask for things. But I haven't heard anybody argue that the law requires you to organize your affairs in such a way that you can comply with requests like this "cleanly." Generally you don't have to set up your business in such a way as to comply with requests cleanly, though there are exceptions for certain telecom providers (not applicable here). But by the same token your inability to comply cleanly doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to comply. So our landlord hypothetical the landlord certainly is allowed to use the same lock on every door, but he still has to turn over the key when it is demanded. As for the collateral consequences to third parties the court will not assume that the government is going to abuse their access to search more than they are authorized to. That seems to be the biggest disconnect. The judge didn't think that the ability to decrpyt all the traffic was a pertinent harm because his order didn't allow the agents to look at it. Whether or not that's a reasonable assumption as a matter of fact is an empirical question, but it is certainly a reasonable, perhaps even compelled, one from a legal standpoint.

raganwald 13y ago
One of the reasons I Am Not A Lawyer is this: If the business is allowed to send its customers a form letter telling them that hey has given the master key to the government, I would understand the position that the interests of the other customers were reasonably safeguarded. If, for example, one of them was discussing some business and then suspicious trading occurred, she might ask whether a government employee abused the master key and was doing some insider trading on the side. But if the business is not allowed to tell the customers that their privacy has been compromised, I would not want to give the government the "benefit of the doubt" about their use or abuse of a master key. Trust, but verify, as they say. How does one verify when these security letters are handed out like candy?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> When setting up a business, are you required to organize it in such a way that in the future, the government can come along and perform a certain kind of search/and/or seizure? No you aren't required to, however, you are required to cooperate with legitimate searches/seizures even if the you have structured your business so that doing so inconveniences other customers unrelated to the target of the search/seizure. You can't structure your business in such a way as to make narrow searches/seizures impossible without inconveniencing unrelated customers and then use that as an excuse not to cooperate with otherwise-legitimate searches and seizures.