12 ms·

It's bigger than that. Theoretically, anyone can use the law to go after anyone, anywhere, for anything. For example, the government of California, where I don'

by jarrett 13y ago

It's bigger than that. Theoretically, anyone can use the law to go after anyone, anywhere, for anything. For example, the government of California, where I don't live and have never once been, could accuse me of trafficking drugs there, which I haven't done. Or, I could sue you for personal injury, even though we've never had contact outside this comment thread. Indeed, you could do the same to me. Our legal system exists to resolve these claims. Ideally, when an absurd claim is made, the courts toss it. But crucially, that doesn't prevent the victim having to waste time and resources on a defense or response. What's the solution to this problem? Usually, it's to create some disincentive against outrageous or frivolous legal actions. Sometimes, this can take the form of sanctions, which can involve a monetary penalty. But what happens when a state government is the one initiating the action? Theoretically, sanctions might be possible in some scenarios. But I'd imagine that in practice, governments get sanctioned only once in a blue moon, if that.

joesmo 13y ago
Exactly. The part that I don't understand is why the programmer even has to acknowledge the subpoena at all or show up to court. It's obviously out of jurisdiction. If NJ issues a warrant, then NJ would have to be avoided in travels, but beyond that I cannot see anything that NJ could do to him if he just ignored the subpoena. Then again, I'm not a legal expert, so perhaps someone with more information about such processes could comment more.
- dlitz 13y ago
  Why should he have to avoid NJ, though?
- jarrett 13y ago
  > The part that I don't understand is why the programmer even has to acknowledge the subpoena at all or show up to court. That's actually the whole point of subpoenas. They're a step up from a simple letter demanding information. In the latter case, the recipient may choose to respond in the hopes of placating the sender, or s/he may choose to ignore it. You can see why that would be a problem. Sometimes litigants genuinely need to force the other party to produce information. There has to be some method of doing so, and there has to be some way to enforce compliance. Thus the subpoena: A request you're not allowed to simply ignore. Obviously, if you create a procedural right like this, there's room for abuse. The courts theoretically serve as a check on such abuse. The court may reject a litigant's application for a subpoena outright. Alternatively, the recipient may file a motion to quash, explaining to the court why s/he shouldn't have to comply with the subpoena. Subpoenas that are abusive, oppressive, overly burdensome, unreasonable, or downright outrageous will likely be quashed. Even with these checks in place, the system is imperfect. Recipients of defective subpoenas are still burdened with, at the very least, filing a motion to quash. Practically speaking, anyone who receives a subpoena will have to pay for a lawyer or find one to represent him/her for free. This problem is not unique to subpoenas. The same argument could be made about nearly any legal process. If I sue you frivolously, you still have to get a lawyer. If the state arrests you for no reason, you still have to get a lawyer. Et cetera. Is there a solution? There may be a partial solution available to our society: We could increase the penalties for abuse of legal process, and make those penalties applicable in a broader range of circumstances. Of course, this approach increases the risk to those who would make legitimate use of legal processes, so it's not without downsides. It's a difficult balance to strike.

by jarrett 13y ago

joesmo 13y ago

Exactly. The part that I don't understand is why the programmer even has to acknowledge the subpoena at all or show up to court. It's obviously out of jurisdiction. If NJ issues a warrant, then NJ would have to be avoided in travels, but beyond that I cannot see anything that NJ could do to him if he just ignored the subpoena. Then again, I'm not a legal expert, so perhaps someone with more information about such processes could comment more.

dlitz 13y ago
Why should he have to avoid NJ, though?
jarrett 13y ago
> The part that I don't understand is why the programmer even has to acknowledge the subpoena at all or show up to court. That's actually the whole point of subpoenas. They're a step up from a simple letter demanding information. In the latter case, the recipient may choose to respond in the hopes of placating the sender, or s/he may choose to ignore it. You can see why that would be a problem. Sometimes litigants genuinely need to force the other party to produce information. There has to be some method of doing so, and there has to be some way to enforce compliance. Thus the subpoena: A request you're not allowed to simply ignore. Obviously, if you create a procedural right like this, there's room for abuse. The courts theoretically serve as a check on such abuse. The court may reject a litigant's application for a subpoena outright. Alternatively, the recipient may file a motion to quash, explaining to the court why s/he shouldn't have to comply with the subpoena. Subpoenas that are abusive, oppressive, overly burdensome, unreasonable, or downright outrageous will likely be quashed. Even with these checks in place, the system is imperfect. Recipients of defective subpoenas are still burdened with, at the very least, filing a motion to quash. Practically speaking, anyone who receives a subpoena will have to pay for a lawyer or find one to represent him/her for free. This problem is not unique to subpoenas. The same argument could be made about nearly any legal process. If I sue you frivolously, you still have to get a lawyer. If the state arrests you for no reason, you still have to get a lawyer. Et cetera. Is there a solution? There may be a partial solution available to our society: We could increase the penalties for abuse of legal process, and make those penalties applicable in a broader range of circumstances. Of course, this approach increases the risk to those who would make legitimate use of legal processes, so it's not without downsides. It's a difficult balance to strike.