3 ms·
I think the usual argument against your argument is that compelling silence is reasonably common in law, but compelling false testimony (and I'd argue that bein
by patmcc 13y ago
I think the usual argument against your argument is that compelling silence is reasonably common in law, but compelling false testimony (and I'd argue that being forced to leave a false statement in a published document would be tantamount to that, especially if it was part of a corporation's various filings) is an entirely different matter.
- defen 13y agoI'm not saying that the government forced them to make a false statement - rather, that Apple chose to make a statement that would be expected regardless of whether they've received any 215 orders (if they haven't, then it's a true statement. If they have, they are forced to deny them...). However, they didn't have to make a statement at all, and I think that part is telling.
- bradleyjg 13y agoMy best guess is that the warrant would be served to someone not in the chain of command for the canary filings and order the person served not to share it with anyone in that chain.