4 ms·

I was actually thinking that this proposed law is precisely how you "solve" the warrant canary "problem". No need to order anybody to make false statements - bu

I was actually thinking that this proposed law is precisely how you "solve" the warrant canary "problem". No need to order anybody to make false statements - but if you take the canary down, you've broken the law, and you created this problem for yourself.

teddyh 11y ago
I thought the idea of a warrant canary was that it had to be an explicit statement you make, multiple times, so that when you cease making the statements, it would mean something. I.e. a warrant canary would not be something you would actively “take down”, it would be a thing which you stop doing.
- Pitarou 11y ago
  The warrant canary idea was bullshit from the start. If not reissuing a warrant canary will let a company's customers know that they are under surveillance, the proposed law will require that company to publish the warrant canary. It's a simple as that. And it is perfectly possible to prosecute someone for "acts of omission". As Wikipedia puts it: > In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.
  - teddyh 11y ago
    The warrant canary idea assumes that the law can never compel anyone to make a false statement. Do you have anything to suggest that this is false?
    - asuffield 11y ago
      You weren't compelled to set up a warrant canary in the first place, so I'm not sure why this is relevant. You did it to yourself. Why do you expect a court to experience sympathy about the fact that you set out to break the law (by communicating this information that you are forbidden to communicate) and set yourself up so that you have to choose between making a false statement or going to jail?
      - teddyh 11y ago
        You seem to be arguing against the very concept of a warrant canary, claiming that it is somehow obviously an unworkable concept, without giving any specific references. Despite this, others seem to be using warrant canaries. What do you know that they don’t? Are those using warrant canaries simply delusional? You have to make a more solid argument for your point than simple assertions. Also, your argument style is very aggressive, adressing me personally, saying “You did it to yourself.”, despite the fact that I have not claimed to have published a warrant canary.
        asuffield 11y ago
        > What do you know that they don’t? I know that a law has been proposed which would effectively make them illegal. > Despite this, others seem to be using warrant canaries. I believe that the source of your confusion is that we are presently discussing a proposed law which may come into effect in the future, while you are examining the past when that law was not in effect.
        teddyh 11y ago
        No, you said “The warrant canary idea was bullshit from the start.” – i.e. you think that warrant canaries were never viable.
        Pitarou 11y ago
        No, it was me who said that. If I understand you correctly, your main points are: 1. The law can never compel you to make a false statement. 2. Lots of firms are doing it, and they probably know what they're doing. For point 1, if you can show me a credible legal authority arguing that British law can never, under any circumstances, compel a person to lie, I'll accept that I was wrong, and I'll thank you for teaching me something new this day. But rather than do that, you've suggested that I should try to disprove your claim. Well, I admit that I can't offer a rigorous disproof, but that's to be expected: disproof is always hard. (Can you disprove the existence of sasquatches?) So let's put that aside, at least until a real lawyer gets involved, and move on to point 2. And for 2, I don't think you'd say that if you'd seen as much legal bullshit in your time as I have. Do you remember, back in the 90s, envelopes that said, "By opening this envelope, you agree to the Terms & Conditions enclosed." Or more recently, have you seen online services whose Terms & Conditions say something like, "We can change these Terms & Conditions at any time, without telling you." They're both obvious bullshit, and yet in both cases lawyers kept pushing them onto their clients until a court ruled against the practices. So I believe that the warrant canary is another piece of obvious bullshit, which will die a quick death when a court examines it. In fact, it's possible that a court already HAS ruled against the idea, but we just don't know about it. Or, to put it another way, I think there's every chance that some of the warrant canaries we are seeing published now are lies. That would certainly explain why we've yet to see the non-renewal of a warrant canary!
- asuffield 11y ago
  You have the intent to pass on the information and performed the act to pass on the information. That's mens rea and actus reus covered. It doesn't matter how convoluted you make the method. No court in the world is going to be amused at the idea that you can wriggle out of following the law by doing things in a complicated way.
TrevorJ 11y ago
What if the canary is served from a different web server, which happens to have some uptime problems that coincided with warrants being served? Can the government really criminalize your failure to keep your website up 100% of the time forever?
- asuffield 11y ago
  The proposed law as written does not care how you implement it. The proposed crime is to pass the information on by any means. If you invented a way to make this really hard for yourself, that would be your own problem.

teddyh 11y ago

I thought the idea of a warrant canary was that it had to be an explicit statement you make, multiple times, so that when you cease making the statements, it would mean something. I.e. a warrant canary would not be something you would actively “take down”, it would be a thing which you stop doing.

Pitarou 11y ago
The warrant canary idea was bullshit from the start. If not reissuing a warrant canary will let a company's customers know that they are under surveillance, the proposed law will require that company to publish the warrant canary. It's a simple as that. And it is perfectly possible to prosecute someone for "acts of omission". As Wikipedia puts it: > In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.
- teddyh 11y ago
  The warrant canary idea assumes that the law can never compel anyone to make a false statement. Do you have anything to suggest that this is false?
  - asuffield 11y ago
    You weren't compelled to set up a warrant canary in the first place, so I'm not sure why this is relevant. You did it to yourself. Why do you expect a court to experience sympathy about the fact that you set out to break the law (by communicating this information that you are forbidden to communicate) and set yourself up so that you have to choose between making a false statement or going to jail?
    - teddyh 11y ago
      You seem to be arguing against the very concept of a warrant canary, claiming that it is somehow obviously an unworkable concept, without giving any specific references. Despite this, others seem to be using warrant canaries. What do you know that they don’t? Are those using warrant canaries simply delusional? You have to make a more solid argument for your point than simple assertions. Also, your argument style is very aggressive, adressing me personally, saying “You did it to yourself.”, despite the fact that I have not claimed to have published a warrant canary.
      - asuffield 11y ago
        > What do you know that they don’t? I know that a law has been proposed which would effectively make them illegal. > Despite this, others seem to be using warrant canaries. I believe that the source of your confusion is that we are presently discussing a proposed law which may come into effect in the future, while you are examining the past when that law was not in effect.
        teddyh 11y ago
        No, you said “The warrant canary idea was bullshit from the start.” – i.e. you think that warrant canaries were never viable.
        Pitarou 11y ago
        No, it was me who said that. If I understand you correctly, your main points are: 1. The law can never compel you to make a false statement. 2. Lots of firms are doing it, and they probably know what they're doing. For point 1, if you can show me a credible legal authority arguing that British law can never, under any circumstances, compel a person to lie, I'll accept that I was wrong, and I'll thank you for teaching me something new this day. But rather than do that, you've suggested that I should try to disprove your claim. Well, I admit that I can't offer a rigorous disproof, but that's to be expected: disproof is always hard. (Can you disprove the existence of sasquatches?) So let's put that aside, at least until a real lawyer gets involved, and move on to point 2. And for 2, I don't think you'd say that if you'd seen as much legal bullshit in your time as I have. Do you remember, back in the 90s, envelopes that said, "By opening this envelope, you agree to the Terms & Conditions enclosed." Or more recently, have you seen online services whose Terms & Conditions say something like, "We can change these Terms & Conditions at any time, without telling you." They're both obvious bullshit, and yet in both cases lawyers kept pushing them onto their clients until a court ruled against the practices. So I believe that the warrant canary is another piece of obvious bullshit, which will die a quick death when a court examines it. In fact, it's possible that a court already HAS ruled against the idea, but we just don't know about it. Or, to put it another way, I think there's every chance that some of the warrant canaries we are seeing published now are lies. That would certainly explain why we've yet to see the non-renewal of a warrant canary!
asuffield 11y ago
You have the intent to pass on the information and performed the act to pass on the information. That's mens rea and actus reus covered. It doesn't matter how convoluted you make the method. No court in the world is going to be amused at the idea that you can wriggle out of following the law by doing things in a complicated way.

TrevorJ 11y ago

What if the canary is served from a different web server, which happens to have some uptime problems that coincided with warrants being served? Can the government really criminalize your failure to keep your website up 100% of the time forever?

asuffield 11y ago
The proposed law as written does not care how you implement it. The proposed crime is to pass the information on by any means. If you invented a way to make this really hard for yourself, that would be your own problem.