[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.