5 ms·

So why not publish positive canaries with an explicit expiry date that requires manual republishing? If you set in place a scheme, long before any agency conta

So why not publish positive canaries with an explicit expiry date that requires manual republishing? If you set in place a scheme, long before any agency contacts you, whereby you manually publish a statement saying you have not received an NSL, and that statement disappears on its own, how could they prosecute you for failing to publish that statement? Better yet, make each canary in the form of an original haiku. Month 1: reddit.com has not to date received an NS letter Month 2: This, our company As of the time this appears Has not been silenced Month 3: Our routine remains A haiku for you from us On the month's first day Is the USG going to claim that reddit must, in perpetuity, write a new haiku each month? That seems like a burden designed to be defeated in court.

mirimir 11y ago
I totally agree! In fact, when I first heard of warrant canaries, that's how I expected that they would work.
ghayes 11y ago
I think the argument is that this a scheme clearly setup to flout the law. If those haikus kept going by a business exec until an associate should sell the company's stock, would that be an acceptable way of insider trading?
- Odin78 11y ago
  After some contemplation I must say I agree with you. Using technicalities like "well I didn't ACTIVELY say anything!" to get around the law shouldn't work in any situation - your example makes this very apparent. At the same time, companies should not be forced to try and circumvent the law with cute tricks. Preventing companies from informing their users/customers that their privacy has been breached by a 3-letter-agency should be illegal. We shouldn't be arguing about the legality of canaries, we should be arguing about the legality of gag orders. Arguing pro canaries is fighting a losing battle; it's fighting the symptoms instead of the cause.
- appleflaxen 11y ago
  The difference is in the timing. Prior to receiving an NSL, it's legal for you to say you didn't get one. In the example of insider trading, it was NEVER legal for you to give inside information. So stopping your Haiku is legal, but the discussion when you agreed "sell your stock when my Haiku ends" was not.
PeCaN 11y ago
This is, in fact, how rsync.net's canary works: https://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt https://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
rtpg 11y ago
at what point does it stop becoming "not publishing a statement" and becomes "publishing a coded statement"? "No NSL Letter has been given for data to users with the 1st letter being P" "No NSL Letter has been given for data to users with the 2nd letter G" etc etc. Publishing 200 haikus a month like this would surely go against the gag order (since you could reveal the username like this). I think at one point common sense comes int play
- lukevdp 11y ago
  The law and common sense only partially intersect

mirimir 11y ago

I totally agree! In fact, when I first heard of warrant canaries, that's how I expected that they would work.

ghayes 11y ago

I think the argument is that this a scheme clearly setup to flout the law. If those haikus kept going by a business exec until an associate should sell the company's stock, would that be an acceptable way of insider trading?

Odin78 11y ago
After some contemplation I must say I agree with you. Using technicalities like "well I didn't ACTIVELY say anything!" to get around the law shouldn't work in any situation - your example makes this very apparent. At the same time, companies should not be forced to try and circumvent the law with cute tricks. Preventing companies from informing their users/customers that their privacy has been breached by a 3-letter-agency should be illegal. We shouldn't be arguing about the legality of canaries, we should be arguing about the legality of gag orders. Arguing pro canaries is fighting a losing battle; it's fighting the symptoms instead of the cause.
appleflaxen 11y ago
The difference is in the timing. Prior to receiving an NSL, it's legal for you to say you didn't get one. In the example of insider trading, it was NEVER legal for you to give inside information. So stopping your Haiku is legal, but the discussion when you agreed "sell your stock when my Haiku ends" was not.

PeCaN 11y ago

This is, in fact, how rsync.net's canary works: https://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt https://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

rtpg 11y ago

at what point does it stop becoming "not publishing a statement" and becomes "publishing a coded statement"? "No NSL Letter has been given for data to users with the 1st letter being P" "No NSL Letter has been given for data to users with the 2nd letter G" etc etc. Publishing 200 haikus a month like this would surely go against the gag order (since you could reveal the username like this). I think at one point common sense comes int play

lukevdp 11y ago
The law and common sense only partially intersect