On 4/5/15, Ryan Carboni <ryacko@gmail.com> wrote:
IANAL, but laws are pretty clear. You cannot change your behavior in any way that a jury could judge would lead to someone being tipped off.
Whoa there cowboy! IANAL but the common law is pretty clear: you cannot compel performance (in general that is, certain writs excepted of course). Now the rest is my unpacking, and a bit of ranting, and I realise you added "IANAL", but if you're thin skinned, stop reading now and go to law school (you need to). When you use the phrase "You cannot change your behavior in any way", you are speaking to acting, and leading the reader to presume an "unlawfully demonstrative" action on the part of the actor; this is an entirely different slant to that presumed by the warrant canary: that is, performing lawful actions during a period of time, and later ceasing to act or ceasing to do that thing. Ceasing to do something, is lack of performance, which is entirely different legal territory to acting, or performing an act. In common law (in general), you cannot compel me to act, to perform some action. Let's say we put up a web cam in an office across the street from my office, and each morning I wave from my office at that webcam - this could be my 'canary' for my "private email" customers. Can a court (that is, lawfully), order that I wave out my office window, in exactly the same manner as I have been doing for the last three years, at exactly the same time, wearing exactly the same clothes and same hairstyle (let's say I have been shaving my head). So now, my shirt gets stained ("accidentally" of course:) with tomato sauce, I miss my barbershop appointment for a few weeks, so my hair grows, my razor stops working, so I can't shave and I grow a beard and mustache, I'm really tired each day now, so I wave more slowly than I used to, I also look subtly sad/happy compared to normal, and, oh how could it have happened, the rent for my office doesn't get paid, and I get an eviction notice, so sad, so sad, I can no longer wave out my office window each morning. How the FUCK is a court going to order me around to stop every one of these "variations" in my "behaviour"?!! Are you serious when you say a jury would convict me of unlawful non-behaviour? Or that a court is going to order that I behave in precisely these ways/times/fashions/etc? Please!! Some people might be so stupid as to soak up such rubbish, but I have some hope that not everyone is so dum/ uncreative as to swallow such bullshit. Secondly, when you say "...in any way that a jury could judge...", I am reminded of one (USA) phrase to describe juries as "the gang of 12" - a "gang" referring, AIUI, to the relative unpredictability of the outcome one might get - but this has a very positive side, refer in particular to the Trial of William Penn and Bushel's Case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case In the hindsight of the Trial of William Penn and Bushel's Case, one might be inclined to consider such "random" legal outcomes from the so-called "gang" of 12, to instead be rare "bastions of sanity" (verdicts) from the "final stronghold of justice" (jury/"gang" of 12)! Our language is somewhat required (for communication that is) on this list or elsewhere; it is a tool - one we may use for good or for evil (choose your definition, I won't argue your definition, although it might not match mine). Subtleties of implication, nuance of unspoken presumptions, leading statements and questions, can lead the uninformed reader to thoughts or (worse) conclusions, which thoughts and conclusions are most definitely NOT in our interest! Please, THINK before you type. Thanks :) Zenaan