• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    if you are ever asked to sign an NDA that says you can’t cooperate with law enforcement

    i don’t think this is even enforceable

    an nda is enforced by the justice system it’s not going to enforce it against itself

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      27 days ago

      I think the NDA could restrict you from talking to law enforcement about what you had for breakfast and probably be enforceable but contracts can’t be enforced if they’d require you to commit crimes or prevent you from reporting crimes.

      • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        27 days ago

        The NDA was apparently against voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. Essentially, it was agreeing to only cooperate to the extent required by law.

        That’s still bad, but wouldn’t overtly compel someone to commit a crime. It’s just heavily implying that crimes are being committed and could easily push someone to do something illegal simply to cover their own ass.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          Sure, but all voluntary cooperation with law enforcement would still be allowed under that NDA. The NDA itself might be legal to ask someone to sign, but you can never restrict someone’s right to report criminal activity (you’re also never punished for choosing not to report criminal activity, but the right to report is inalienable).

          Legal agreements frequently include unenforceable bullshit. For instance a contract may include a phrase like “Either party may consult a lawyer if they surrender 300$ to the other party” you can put that in a contract and someone might pay you 300$… but the ability to consult a lawyer is inalienable so you could also consult a lawyer and refuse to pay the 300$ and they’d have no recourse to force payment.

          The TL;DR is that we let bad faith lawyers get away with writing extremely unfair contracts that pressure people to do something without actually having the backing of the law. If people challenge it they’ll win - but we’ve gotten really lax and don’t actually punish the contract authors so a lot of folks just write bullshit into contracts that’d never hold up in court in the hope that people just blindly obey it.

          And the TL;DR TL;DR (yes, I do in fact have ADHD, how could you tell) is…

          Always talk to a fucking lawyer.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      27 days ago

      an nda is enforced by the justice system it’s not going to enforce it against itself

      It’s not that simple. There are two main components to the legal system, civil and criminal. Civil is between two private parties (people, companies, and sometimes the government) for disputes with contracts and such. Criminal law is when the government brings changes against you for breaking the law.

      Generally law enforcement (“the justice system”) works on the criminal side of things. It doesn’t really care about a contract between two people if something illegal is happening. Can you imagine the loopholes that could create in organized crime if you just had to write a contract and you couldn’t use an otherwise willing accomplice as a witness?