Comment by mjevans
2 years ago
I would hope they at least:
* Require a copy of the badge number, and verify that this officer is assigned and expected to be at this business right now.
* Require them to sign into and out of the site.
* Annotate which systems / compromises are in place.
- That all of the above MIGHT be sealed under a court order; I would hope any such order has an automatic 'sunset' date, and possibly renewal upon review by a different judge.
A business can request visiting law enforcement to do all those things, and hopefully law enforcement complies. However, if they refuse to comply, realistically you just have to let them in anyway. Document their non-compliance and provide it to your lawyers, who can decide what action to take (lodge a formal complaint to the law enforcement agency, apply to a judge for an injunction to compel their compliance, etc)
Well, that’s true in countries like Germany or the US. I suspect in somewhere like Russia or China, formal complaints are unlikely to achieve anything except invite government retaliation.
> realistically you just have to let them in anyway
No, you don't. If they have a warrant then you need to let them in for the purposes specified in the warrant. Otherwise you're free to tell them to piss off. Unfortunately you're also free to acquiesce to any of their demands.
This kind of passive, default-compliant attitude from service providers, while understandable from a "path of least resistance" standpoint, is exactly the kind of behavior that allows the third party doctrine to circumvent so many of our basic rights. As a service provider, often the more difficult path is to challenge authority, rather than to cooperate with it. And unfortunately that means that most service providers will simply cooperate.
> No, you don't. If they have a warrant then you need to let them in for the purposes specified in the warrant. Otherwise you're free to tell them to piss off.
Any lawyer will tell you - if law enforcement attempts a warrant-less search, you tell them you do not consent to it, but you do not attempt to physically stop them from performing it. Tell them they are unwelcome and to come back with a warrant, but if they insist on entering in spite of that, you let them in.
2 replies →
Non-compliance with a law enforcement order is a good way to get shot (in America) or arrested (in most countries) even if there is no legal basis for the order.
Latter is not correct. It's well known difference in Russia between companies that willingly cooperate with government agencies informally, and those who just provide information upon formal request according to law.
How do you know for sure the people who “just provide information upon formal request according to law” aren’t covertly engaging in informal cooperation?
If one morning the CEO gets an unexpected visit at home from a group of FSB agents asking for some favours, is the CEO going to say “no”? And if the CEO says “yes”, are you going to hear about it, or are they going to let the CEO continue that pretence?
Western CEOs don’t have the same worry about “accidentally” falling out of hospital windows.
1 reply →
Those are some very optimistic hopes!
You would expect that at AWS, but Hetzner is a low-cost operation.