5 ms·
I 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 exac
by jat850 11y ago
I 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.