3 ms·
That's exactly why it seems a bit premature to preemptively dismiss them as "worthless." There's a pretty interesting question here (IMO) of whether the court
by haberman 13y ago
That's exactly why it seems a bit premature to preemptively dismiss them as "worthless." There's a pretty interesting question here (IMO) of whether the court can compel a false statement, or whether they can exercise prior restraint on companies saying they haven't received a warrant.
- jasallen 13y agoAll the same defen admitted it was speculation and that he's not a lawyer, so, it's opinion. Perhaps his opinion is "worthless" too, but since he gave you his (lack of) credentials you can judge for yourself. I get so tired of the "you need to quote sources" in simple commentary.
- haberman 13y agoThe latter part of what I quoted wasn't phrased as speculation, which was what irked me. But the fact that OP has heard this opinion expressed by lawyers certainly makes the comment more interesting.
- Spooky23 13y agoThere's another, more practical question. Does the canary-wielding party have the resources to fight the matter to conclusion. If there's no known caselaw, you're going to have to litigate with the US government over this issue. That's an uphill battle that is exhausting, outrageously expensive and fraught with risks to both the company and the principals. And guess what? Lets say you win this epic battle after spending lots of money and many months of your time. Everything that you've done was done in a secret court and will be unknown to the world. Your attorneys get a big check, and you get a pyrrhic victory that you cannot tell anyone about.