7 ms·
Based on spez's language, is it safe to assume that a NSL has indeed been received? That's my interpretation (and it seems that of other reddit commentors too).
by jat850 11y ago
Based on spez's language, is it safe to assume that a NSL has indeed been received? That's my interpretation (and it seems that of other reddit commentors too).
- jessaustin 11y agoAny other interpretation would call into serious question the entire concept of canaries.
- rconti 11y ago"maybe they just got bored of it". Haha.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoOr Twitter sent then a C&D. All your birds are belong to us.
- jat850 11y agoI agree. One commentor suggested that they could have voluntarily removed it for some other unrelated reason, but then they would have no reason to not say exactly that - which they aren't. Seems to leave only one reason why they did.
- hxegon 11y agoWhich spez responds to and says: "I've been advised not to say anything". Only explanation I can see is NSL.
- firebones 11y agoWhich leaves open the possibility of the nefarious catch-22 of the pre-emptive NSL: the NSL that threatens you to take down the canary before they have to issue you a substantive NSL!
- look_lookatme 11y agoThis is not how an NSL works.
- recursive 11y agoBut if you knew how an NSL worked, how could you say?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- irascible 11y agoN.ot to S.ay A.nything.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoPeople see NSA everywhere they want to. Yet, domesric authority here is FBI which compels SIGINT-enabling for NSA per leaks. Court order, NSL, or backdoor are all FBI if coerced.
- vacri 11y agoSo, one disadvantage of these loophole canaries is that they only work once. What happens when another NSL is issued at a later date?
- lugg 11y agoIt doesn't matter. Once is all it takes, from that point forward you can't fully trust anything they say about their privacy / security. The only real questions are: is this an april fools? And does it matter?
- jat850 11y agoI suspect you were being tongue in cheek about it, but I don't think this would be an April Fools' matter for Reddit.
- colejohnson66 11y agoThey could bring it back but with a catch: "between 1 April 2016 and (today) we have not received any NSLs, etc." But if you're gonna do that, you could do: "Yesterday, (date), we did not revive any NSLs, etc."
- grrowl 11y agoTHAT would definitely draw the ire of the law. They're even limited in how many regular orders they received to ranges of 500.
- colejohnson66 11y agoBut as has been said before, it's undecided if warrent canaries are even legal. So until we get a ruling on wether they are legal or not, we really have no way of knowing what we can and can't do.
- rdtsc 11y agoMoreover. The state, as an actor, should simply generate constant stream of NSL requests to trip as many canaries as possible. They have the time and resources. This would basically nullify the effectiveness of canaries as a concept. "Hey George, did you hear Reddit has a canary now too. Ok, add it to the list. Pick a user there and issue an NSL. And don't forget about Google and FB this month as well, they are about to reset theirs". Putting oneself in the shoes of such an actor this is a rational approach to take.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 11y agoHere is a good explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_your_reading_pleasure_our_2015_transparency/d1kvvr8 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_y...
- shalmanese 11y agoBetter link with context: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_your_reading_pleasure_our_2015_transparency/d1kvvr8?context=9 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_y... edit: There appears to be a bug in the reddit context code, here's the original root comment that sparked the discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_your_reading_pleasure_our_2015_transparency/d1knc88 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_y...
- schneidmaster 11y agoIncidentally, it's not a bug per se, reddit only supports contexts between 0 and 8, presumably for performance reasons. It's documented in the API docs: https://www.reddit.com/dev/api#GET_comments_{article} https://www.reddit.com/dev/api#GET_comments_{article}
- Aelinsaar 11y agoIt's the ONLY safe assumption.
- yk 11y agoI think there are basically two plausible scenarios, either they received a NSL or they do no longer believe that a canary is necessary and misjudged the interpretation. (In the second case, they could of course clarify in the comments.)
- krapp 11y agoIt's a dead man's switch. If it's gone, they've been served with an NSL and the site has been compromised. There's no room for interpretation and no other scenario can be considered plausible.
- abetusk 11y agoCEO of Reddit Steve Huffman, username "spez", writes: "I've been advised not to say anything one way or the other." [1] when asked whether he withdrew the canary voluntarily. The comment directly beneath sums it up: "In case anyone is still confused or in disbelief, this is where he confirmed it. He really can't say it any more clearly without teasing the law to go after him." [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_your_reading_pleasure_our_2015_transparency/d1kpn4k https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_y...
- rtpg 11y agoI do not believe that a canary can be a reasonable defense for "Oh I didn't say anything" There's two situations here: Either the gov't doesn't care that you say you got an NSL (without specifics on time/subject), or they do care. If they do care, discussion with judge: - Did you say you got an NSL, despite there being a gag order? - Well I didn't not say anything - You had previously had a communication strategy set up to communicate when you would get an NSL - ... - So you did say it. Case where the gov't doesn't care that you mention you got one (given you hide the time/subject through delays): - Why did you do all the crazy stuff to tell people instead of just telling people? - It was funner this way Is the canary really a legal defence? I can only imagine that no, it isn't. At best it lets you imply that you got an NSL even if you didn't (oops we removed it from the template). At worst you're facing the same legal issues as before
- unchocked 11y agoCan the government compel you to lie? (I don't know). If they can't, then the canary is a legal defense, unless of course the gov't prohibits those of us who haven't got an NSL from confirming that we haven't got one. But even that could not be retroactive.
- rtpg 11y agoIt's not about compelling you to lie. Nobody compelled you to start the canary in the first place. The gov't gives you a gag order, and a priori gag orders are constitutional, so... you're going to have a hard time finding a judge who will accept the "Oh I was going to follow the gag order but my duty to my redditors to not write my haiku was so big!" argument. The government has no responsibility to assist you in self-perpetuating logic puzzles.
- 794CD01 11y agoWhy does it matter? Are you really going to change your behavior based on this assumption?
- grecy 11y agoThe more important part is that in a country that supposedly has very strong free speech laws, the government can issue a gag order, for any reason they deem, without using normal courts. Surely that's a very, very bad thing.
- freehunter 11y agoIf you decide to put in a canary and then at any time after remove the canary, the only way to interpret that is that the canary died. There's no point in debating any nuance in his comment. The canary died.
- JdeBP 11y agoNo; it's just pining for the fjords. ... What? A canary? Oh, right ... No; it's just pining for the volcanoes.