kuroshima
Curator
Spaniard Despite Himself
Posts: 19
|
Authored by kuroshima on Aug 21, 2013 11:21:16 GMT
If someone has NOT received an NSL, can they say so? If someone has received an NSL, can they say they didn't?
I say so because if someone who has received an NSL can not confirm or deny it's existence, but someone who has not received one is not under any sort of universal gag order, it might be a way to identify who has received them. If they can lie, however, the simple refusal to answer to avoid lying can also serve to identify people who have received such things.
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 11:41:38 GMT
I would say that regardless of the answer, we could develop an etiquette on the subject that would help to distinguish between the two possibilities while allowing people to answer in the manner that they may be required to answer.
If someone (here) has NOT received an NSL, they should say that nobody has told them to say that they have not. If someone (here) HAS received an NSL, they should say that they have not.
Something like that.
|
|
|
Authored by toki on Aug 21, 2013 17:52:24 GMT
Potential problem: I say I have not recieved an NSL, on Monday. I recieve an NSL on Tuesday. I can not remove my declaration after Tuesday. You read it on Thursday.
You have false data, which can not be corrected.
Disclaimer # 1: I am not a lawyer. Disclaimer # 2: At least one TLA routinely reads my snail mail, or causes it to not be delivered. Likewise, my email is read by at least one TLA. I suspect that I have been subject to real time tracking of my Internet activity.
|
|
|
Authored by drakaan on Aug 21, 2013 18:13:44 GMT
I haven't looked closely at profile information for users...those with a desire to could add a dated tagline along the lines of my suggestion, maybe?
|
|
Cm
Guest
|
Authored by Cm on Aug 22, 2013 13:17:31 GMT
IIRC, in the UK, the Official Secrets Act (if it existed, that is) would cover itself and if you had signed it (if it existed), you could not tell anyone that it existed (if it does, that is), nor that you had signed it (if you had, it would be covered by itself and so it would be an official secret (if such a thing exists) that you had signed it).
Or to put it another way, if someone receives a NSL they cannot confirm, nor deny, that fact, but anyone who has not received a NSL can deny (nor honestly say they have received one). So the very fact that someone does not deny/confirm they have received a NSL gives a very good indication (prob > 99%) that they have received one.
The paradox of perfectly random numbers (the more a sequence of random numbers adheres to the tests for randomness [without bias] the greater the probability of predicting the next number in the sequence) rears its ugly head again in the paradox of the secret letters (when you receive one you cannot say whether you have, or have not, but if you have not received one you can say you haven't).
|
|