zlacker

Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion. Government law enforcement agencies shouldn’t be “asking” for anything unless it’s done under due process of law. Sorry but I 100% disagree.

>>oceanp+(OP)
> Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion.

Strong disagree. I've been on the receiving side of many such requests and all of them came with reasons and citations to back up the request. I've never had a single LE request (including some from the FBI even though we were located in Toronto, Canada and in IJmuiden, NL meaning that we could have refused them simply on account of not being in their jurisdiction) that did not make perfect sense to me.

>>oceanp+(OP)
Exactly. Well put.

>>jacque+q1
1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.

2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.

>>simple+o2
> 1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.

The context was quite comparable: live conversations, messages both public and private.

> 2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.

Twitter had an extensive legal team before Musk fired them all, I'm pretty sure they were well capable of determining which requests were legal and which were not.

>>simple+o2
Facts like the wrong election day? The day of an election is not an opinion but an objective fact.

>>oceanp+(OP)
> Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion.

That's just obviously false. It was pretty clearly just a suggestion that Twitter investigate violations of its rules, not a demand.

>>jasonh+xa
Taibbi even presents clear evidence that Twitter did not take the FBI's reports as automatic cause for taking action.

>>oceanp+(OP)
That's not true. For example, from https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca...

"Create a strong and unique passphrase for each online account you hold and change them regularly. Using the same passphrase across several accounts makes you more vulnerable if one account is breached."

This is an ask from the FBI. But they obviously aren't coercing you not to use abc123 as your password.

>>oceanp+(OP)
>Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion. Government law enforcement agencies shouldn’t be “asking” for anything unless it’s done under due process of law. Sorry but I 100% disagree.

By that logic, if there's a loud party in your apartment building, the police shouldn't be able to knock on the door where the party is going on to ask them to keep it down unless they already have an arrest warrant for disturbing the peace.

Does that sound about right? Because police should never be involved in anything unless there's a court order. Is that correct?