3 ms·

Whether you would violate the order or not depends on the details. Removing a statement saying that you have not received a warrant/NSL would almost certainly

Whether you would violate the order or not depends on the details. Removing a statement saying that you have not received a warrant/NSL would almost certainly violate the order. Similarly, if you have an automated program that creates the statements and you tell the program to stop producing the statements after receiving the order, that is also likely a violation because you are undertaking an act that was specifically designed to notify people about the order. However, if you are manually creating the statement, failing to create a new statement is a different thing and most likely would not violate the order. The key difference here is doing nothing vs. acting in a way designed to violate the order.

ceejayoz 11y ago
I'd expect a court to treat that sort of attempt at getting around the order via technicality about as well as they treat the Sovereign Citizen folks. I'd also expect NSLs at this point to include language on warrant canaries.
- woodman 11y ago
  From what I've seen, the government has generally avoided engaging with folks in the Sovereign Citizen camp. And with that in mind, I agree with you - they'll do the same thing with this. As long as 99% of people comply, why would you risk the loss of power by setting a legal precedent - even if you've got a 99.999% chance of winning a battle in court.
- downandout 11y ago
  It hasn't been tested in court, but the government would have a hard time taking the position that you must continue producing statements that are false and may fraudulently induce others to engage in behaviors they otherwise wouldn't if you hadn't made the statement. I think under the scenario where you were manually producing statements and simply cease making them, you would at least have the strongest likelihood of surviving a challenge by the DOJ.
  - fleitz 11y ago
    It might work if you published them in your SEC filings perhaps under risks, eg. The risk of being served a warrant

ceejayoz 11y ago

I'd expect a court to treat that sort of attempt at getting around the order via technicality about as well as they treat the Sovereign Citizen folks. I'd also expect NSLs at this point to include language on warrant canaries.

woodman 11y ago
From what I've seen, the government has generally avoided engaging with folks in the Sovereign Citizen camp. And with that in mind, I agree with you - they'll do the same thing with this. As long as 99% of people comply, why would you risk the loss of power by setting a legal precedent - even if you've got a 99.999% chance of winning a battle in court.
downandout 11y ago
It hasn't been tested in court, but the government would have a hard time taking the position that you must continue producing statements that are false and may fraudulently induce others to engage in behaviors they otherwise wouldn't if you hadn't made the statement. I think under the scenario where you were manually producing statements and simply cease making them, you would at least have the strongest likelihood of surviving a challenge by the DOJ.
- fleitz 11y ago
  It might work if you published them in your SEC filings perhaps under risks, eg. The risk of being served a warrant