Re:Twitter discloses national security letters
by therein on Friday January 27, 2017 @10:57PM
(#13504801)
But when dealing with a corporate entity, who do you go after? Since this sort of coercion seems to only work on an individual level, going after the entire corporate entity won't invoke the same emotional response.
Re:Twitter discloses national security letters
by brians on Saturday January 28, 2017 @01:00AM
(#13505165)
NSLs are addressed to, and claim to compel, an individual.
Re:Twitter discloses national security letters
by wfunction on Friday January 27, 2017 @11:02PM
(#13504825)
I don't know how the law works. But my completely-unfounded guess is that whoever is supposed to authorize this and who is refusing would be the one convicted.
Re:Twitter discloses national security letters
by mirimir on Friday January 27, 2017 @11:39PM
(#13504938)
So maybe they ought to be anonymous: http://www.cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
Re:Twitter discloses national security letters
by brokenmachine on Saturday January 28, 2017 @04:58AM
(#13505655)
You're giving system administrator status to an anonymous person on the internet. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Twitter discloses national security letters
by mirimir on Saturday January 28, 2017 @09:59PM
(#13511621)
You give them limited access and rights, to do what you want them to do. Here, they would have access to communications with government agencies, ability to tweet users or groups thereof, and perhaps responsibility for canary management.
Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual issue to court.