4 ms·

“Evidence sufficient for a court order” means a parallel justice system. They claim they couldn't have gotten a court order to search their own servers. Is tha

“Evidence sufficient for a court order” means a parallel justice system. They claim they couldn't have gotten a court order to search their own servers. Is that true? Did they try?

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
I think the claim is based on the fact that if you ask any judge if you can search yourself, the answer is automatically yes, possibly followed up with "why are you even here?" So they're doing the next best thing by having a mock trial, where the answer isn't automatically "yes". They're in kind of a weird position here, but it doesn't seem like there is a better way to do it. IANAL obviously.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  I at least give them credit for responding so quickly to the online shitstorm -- and with what seems like a reasonable, specific plan.
- robszumski 13y ago
  Why wouldn't they let the appropriate authorities know, have them conduct an investigation and get a legal search warrant? Especially if they want to charge the guy anyways. If they just wanted to know who he was, do the hush hush internal search and fire him.
  - derefr 13y ago
    Breaking NDAs and leaking company secrets are civic, not criminal, breaches of law; they only exist insofar as the company is empowered to sue using them. There are no authorities who would be interested in investigating.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Nothing new about that. A great many commercial disputes are settled in the offices of professional arbitrators by mutual agreement or contractual obligation, because it's less expensive than going to court. Contracts give parties wide latitude to define what each others' rights and responsibilities are, notwithstanding the fact that they may be adhesive.Some kinds of contractual arrangements can be declared unconscionable, but not that many - generally only those drafted in such a manner as to be deceptive or which impose retroactive conditions on one of the parties (obviously it's a lot more complicated than that).

“Evidence sufficient for a court order” means a parallel justice system. They claim they couldn't have gotten a court order to search their own servers. Is that true? Did they try?

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

I think the claim is based on the fact that if you ask any judge if you can search yourself, the answer is automatically yes, possibly followed up with "why are you even here?" So they're doing the next best thing by having a mock trial, where the answer isn't automatically "yes". They're in kind of a weird position here, but it doesn't seem like there is a better way to do it. IANAL obviously.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago
I at least give them credit for responding so quickly to the online shitstorm -- and with what seems like a reasonable, specific plan.
robszumski 13y ago
Why wouldn't they let the appropriate authorities know, have them conduct an investigation and get a legal search warrant? Especially if they want to charge the guy anyways. If they just wanted to know who he was, do the hush hush internal search and fire him.
- derefr 13y ago
  Breaking NDAs and leaking company secrets are civic, not criminal, breaches of law; they only exist insofar as the company is empowered to sue using them. There are no authorities who would be interested in investigating.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Nothing new about that. A great many commercial disputes are settled in the offices of professional arbitrators by mutual agreement or contractual obligation, because it's less expensive than going to court. Contracts give parties wide latitude to define what each others' rights and responsibilities are, notwithstanding the fact that they may be adhesive.Some kinds of contractual arrangements can be declared unconscionable, but not that many - generally only those drafted in such a manner as to be deceptive or which impose retroactive conditions on one of the parties (obviously it's a lot more complicated than that).