• a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    Even voluntary cooperation being okay is pretty wild, conceptually. What possible purpose could that serve but covering up crimes?

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      Suppose you work for an email provider and you agree not to talk to law enforcement about your customers’ data without a subpoena. Seems pretty legit to me.

      • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        I imaging that this scenario would be regulated by data protection laws and contracts, not by NDAs.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        If that communication was about a user talking at being at a cafe on a certain day and law enforcement knew that a murder went down at that cafe, then I think it’s enforceable, probably. If you’re reading your server logs and see (and believe genuine) an email arranging a murder then your employer couldn’t restrict you from reporting it to law enforcement.

        You can’t be compelled to criminal activity by a contract and nor can you be prevented from reporting criminal activity by a contract. Trump could get everyone in Trump tower to sign whatever contract he wanted but if he sexually assaulted someone in the lobby he’d have no legal grounds to prevent someone from reporting it to the police.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Does that imply that the NDA would spell out what they weren’t supposed to talk to the police about, like customer records or something like that?

        A blanket ban on speaking with the police would be pretty broad and likely stifle reporting of illegal activities.