Re:What Businessweek got wrong about Apple
by kevin_b_er on Friday October 05, 2018 @10:44AM
(#18148517)
"Did you receive an NSL?"
You have been compel to lie, by the government, to answer "NO" if you've received one.
If you can be compelled to lie that you have received an NSL then I do not see why you can't be forced to lie more.
We already compelled speech, why not more?
Re:What Businessweek got wrong about Apple
by isostatic on Friday October 05, 2018 @11:32AM
(#18148922)
I thought that you could simply not answer the NSL question (hence warrant canaries)
Re:What Businessweek got wrong about Apple
by SpaceGorilla on Friday October 05, 2018 @12:30PM
(#18149463)
Iirc that's only in theory. I don't think there has been any precedent set. But I always see people say that a warrant canary is a false sense of security.
Re:What Businessweek got wrong about Apple
by rocqua on Friday October 05, 2018 @11:10AM
(#18148730)
> This isn't how gag orders (or, in the case of online services, NSLs) work. A gag order can compel you not to share data, but they cannot compel you to lie, let alone lie elaborately
Is there case-law to support this? I've heard the argument often, but I don't believe it has yet been tested.
It’s a well established doctrine that this is a direct consequence of First Amedment: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec...
If Apple is lying here, they're lying because they want to, not because something is forcing them to. I believe them.