[sidewndr46]

This is so abundantly hilarious to read. Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States. It'd be like if I was sentenced to a Federal pentitiary, reported in to serve my sentence and was then found guilty of collaboration with the Federal government in some state court.

Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document. Given that Flock themselves is not being investigated, there isn't really any incentive for them to go that route.

Now the state may be abundantly pissed that the Feds are in their backyard, but they have the right to regulate interstate commerce. They are entirely within their rights to also terminate the contract of course.

[grayhatter]

> Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

Authotrized agents from government show up and demand that I turn over video they call evidence. Then then suggest that I should continue to record video and that I should also enable audio recording too. I comply with all 3 requests.

Later the court rules that original request was an illegal search and seizure, and that no reasonable agent would suggest that I should continue to record video with audio, and in this case/example, elects to reject a qualified immunity claim from the agency.

I just participated in an illegal act by cooperating with the federal government.

> Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document. Given that Flock themselves is not being investigated, there isn't really any incentive for them to go that route.

It's a weird take to suggest that the federal governnment themselves shouldn't need to be bothered by following the law they are expected to enforce... If they want data a state law says is private.... they should get a warrant.

There's a word for the belief that you should do what the executive branch says without demanding they follow the the law... wanna guess what that word is?

[sidewndr46]

The sentence "I should record audio and video in this case and elects to reject a qualified immunity claim." is English but not even comprehensible. I have no idea what you mean.

Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your opinion here that "they should get a warrant"

[grayhatter]

Yeah, phone artifact, sorry about that. let me try to fix it.

Edited the original comment, hope that's better?

[grayhatter]

> Joseph Nacchio certainly would not agree with your opinion here that "they should get a warrant"

Citing Wikipedia

> He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA

Sounds like he would agree with me? Or do you mean how he was convicted of insider trading which appears to be unethical retaliation for resisting an illegal request?

I refuse to advocate that anyone should act unethically because they fear retaliation. whether or not it's the prudent decision, I'm too much of a pedant with low self-preservation instincts to behave in such a despicable way.

[Terr_]

> I refuse to advocate that anyone should act unethically because they fear retaliation.

There are parallels here with other civil rights: It would be a [4th/1st] Amendment rights violation to use the threat of a future [warrant/gag-order] to coerce someone into [disclosing/censoring] something in advance.

[Terr_]

Suppose a private entity commits a state crime, and their defense is "the feds made us do it"... except it's not true, and the feds merely offered a negotiated cash deal, and never took any of the required steps to prove a legitimate need and actually compel action.

Even if I have sympathy for the person/company caught between competing jurisdictions, "they have reputation and I like money" simply isn't a credible defense against the state-crime charges.

> Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document.

Not necessarily, their ability to get a warrant/ subpoena is not a foregone conclusion... If it were, we wouldn't even have the test/authorization system in the first place!

A prediction is not a substitute for the process. Imagine the same equivalence being used to kill a suspected murderer: "Well I was really sure sure the guy would get the death penalty in a trial anyway, so... No problem, right?"

> Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

Quibble: I'm pretty sure you intended to include it, but this is missing an important "legal under federal law" piece. If a real government agent shows up at your door telling you to do something heinous like strangle a baby, there is no plausible way that's legal just because you "cooperated with" the agent.

[sidewndr46]

While I can see your point about "strangle a baby", I don't think there are any events that unfolded like that. If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know that?

[Terr_]

> If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know

Well, in this case, you know because "you" happen to be a ~$3.5b company with a legal department that already works regularly on negotiations and compliance to state/local rules, and likely months to calmly investigate and decide on a policy.

Has Flock Security made any statements claiming they were tricked or rushed by the feds?

[sidewndr46]

No because there would be no reason for them to do that. I'm not even sure how an agent could "trick" someone in this scenario.

But if some federal agents show up & ask for some data then you respond with "sure, let me just run this by legal" they might just follow up with "OK, take a few days if you need to. The DoJ has really been breathing down our backs to go over these mortgage documents you signed last year. We can use this time to do that"

Replace your mortage with your daughter, brother-in-law, cousin, or whatever family member you prefer.

[Spooky23]

What does the contract or the law say?

The “Feds asked nicely” doesn’t change the law. I worked for a company that processed state income tax data. Improper disclosure was a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.

Regulating interstate commerce doesn’t give the content the power to renegotiate state contracts or dismiss state law.

[sidewndr46]

The regulation of interstate absolutely gives the Federal government the ability to agbrogate or invalidate state law. If it didn't there would not be any reason to have it. Although the Federal government actually owns far more land than just D.C. most commerce does not happen there.

If it didn't give the federal government this power then every state would just pass a "nuh uh!" law every time the federal added a tax or whatever to stuff.

[kergonath]

> This is so abundantly hilarious to read. Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.

It’s yet another constitutional crisis. There is nothing hilarious in that. On what ground should random federal agents be able to coerce companies to ignore state laws? Or federal law in a bunch of well-known, high profile cases?