4 ms·

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

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!
      - teddyh 11y ago
        Sorry about the mistaken attribution. 1. I actually never claimed anything about what the law says, I said the the concept of a warrant canary assumes that the law cannot do a particular thing. 2. I thought that the types of organizations which would use a warrant canary would be slightly more resistant to legal superstitions and overreach. I.e. my answer to number 2 above led me to begin with the proposition that warrant canaries were probably legal, and therefore I wanted a disproof. Also, a disproof should in theory be easy; a single example where the law can compel anyone to make a false statement would suffice. It would be wholly impractical for me to try to prove that there are no such rules anywhere in the law, and I am not a lawyer, so I couldn’t do that even if I wanted to.

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!
    - teddyh 11y ago
      Sorry about the mistaken attribution. 1. I actually never claimed anything about what the law says, I said the the concept of a warrant canary assumes that the law cannot do a particular thing. 2. I thought that the types of organizations which would use a warrant canary would be slightly more resistant to legal superstitions and overreach. I.e. my answer to number 2 above led me to begin with the proposition that warrant canaries were probably legal, and therefore I wanted a disproof. Also, a disproof should in theory be easy; a single example where the law can compel anyone to make a false statement would suffice. It would be wholly impractical for me to try to prove that there are no such rules anywhere in the law, and I am not a lawyer, so I couldn’t do that even if I wanted to.