4 ms·

She does (still) have a canary: https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html

by njloof 10y ago

beedogs 10y ago
We won't know whether she still does for another four months.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
Could an NSL require you to leave canaries in place?
- praptak 10y ago
  The (untested) theory behind canaries is that they can forbid you from speaking the truth but they cannot order you to tell a lie. So you don't leave a canary in place, it just expires and you don't put up a new one.
  - mapt 10y ago
    You talk about warrant canaries being an untested legal theory; I say this is putting the cart before the horse. When were National Security Letters with gag orders prohibiting disclosure tested for constitutionality, in cases when the gag orders are violated and the government wants to punish somebody for disclosure?
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  It's unlikely, at least there is no precedent that establishes the legality of compelled speech vs. the restriction of free speech.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  It's never been directly tested in court (not publicly, anyway). The idea is that you can be compelled not to speak about something, but not compelled to speak about it. Forced speech (especially dishonest speech) has never been endorsed by a court. Still, canaries are a bit complex. You obviously can't prove why one was taken down, because you can't speak about it. People floated the idea of using long "canary lists" of different things ("haven't received more than one request for user data", "haven't received more than two requests", etc), but there's suspicion that it wouldn't be legal because it would count as revealing specific facts (and you could perhaps be compelled to remove all of them at once). As is, they don't seem to have been rejected or broken, but they have to take the form of one-and-done notices that something happened.
- danielweber 10y ago
  If you are required not to communicate something, then you don't communicate it. Period. Hackers are bad at thinking "oh, I'll just not not not not do the thing, and it will all be okay, I'm so clever." They imagine they are Captain Kirk talking a computer to death. No one has ever been as smart as them! We wouldn't let a CEO route around insider trading laws with a "I don't say this is a good time to buy my stock" canary. We wouldn't let a prosecutor under orders not to discuss a case with the public get away with it by selectively deleting a series of canaries.
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    Not exactly sure of the legal situation about canaries, but generally they are constructed as a dead man's switch type situation, where you make a commitment to do something if something else hasn't happened. The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy. In any case, I think that you may be able to play chicken with them over warrant canaries, since the people who use NSLs probably aren't interested in giving anyone standing to challenge them in court.
    - danielweber 10y ago
      The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Again: if you are told not to communicate something, you don't communicate it. How come the CEOs who try all sorts of crazy things to work around insider trading haven't tried this? Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy. You have no idea what is going on with Reddit or Apple. I know the EFF is eager to get people to sacrifice themselves on this altar. That says more about the EFF than about the state of law. I think being put under a security order you can't discuss is a serious liberty problem. It doesn't follow that some crazy scheme is the right reply.
      - jbpetersen 10y ago

She does (still) have a canary: https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html

by njloof 10y ago

She does (still) have a canary: https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html

beedogs 10y ago

We won't know whether she still does for another four months.

nothrabannosir 10y ago

Could an NSL require you to leave canaries in place?

praptak 10y ago
The (untested) theory behind canaries is that they can forbid you from speaking the truth but they cannot order you to tell a lie. So you don't leave a canary in place, it just expires and you don't put up a new one.
- mapt 10y ago
  You talk about warrant canaries being an untested legal theory; I say this is putting the cart before the horse. When were National Security Letters with gag orders prohibiting disclosure tested for constitutionality, in cases when the gag orders are violated and the government wants to punish somebody for disclosure?
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
It's unlikely, at least there is no precedent that establishes the legality of compelled speech vs. the restriction of free speech.
Bartweiss 10y ago
It's never been directly tested in court (not publicly, anyway). The idea is that you can be compelled not to speak about something, but not compelled to speak about it. Forced speech (especially dishonest speech) has never been endorsed by a court. Still, canaries are a bit complex. You obviously can't prove why one was taken down, because you can't speak about it. People floated the idea of using long "canary lists" of different things ("haven't received more than one request for user data", "haven't received more than two requests", etc), but there's suspicion that it wouldn't be legal because it would count as revealing specific facts (and you could perhaps be compelled to remove all of them at once). As is, they don't seem to have been rejected or broken, but they have to take the form of one-and-done notices that something happened.
danielweber 10y ago
If you are required not to communicate something, then you don't communicate it. Period. Hackers are bad at thinking "oh, I'll just not not not not do the thing, and it will all be okay, I'm so clever." They imagine they are Captain Kirk talking a computer to death. No one has ever been as smart as them! We wouldn't let a CEO route around insider trading laws with a "I don't say this is a good time to buy my stock" canary. We wouldn't let a prosecutor under orders not to discuss a case with the public get away with it by selectively deleting a series of canaries.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Not exactly sure of the legal situation about canaries, but generally they are constructed as a dead man's switch type situation, where you make a commitment to do something if something else hasn't happened. The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy. In any case, I think that you may be able to play chicken with them over warrant canaries, since the people who use NSLs probably aren't interested in giving anyone standing to challenge them in court.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Again: if you are told not to communicate something, you don't communicate it. How come the CEOs who try all sorts of crazy things to work around insider trading haven't tried this? Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy. You have no idea what is going on with Reddit or Apple. I know the EFF is eager to get people to sacrifice themselves on this altar. That says more about the EFF than about the state of law. I think being put under a security order you can't discuss is a serious liberty problem. It doesn't follow that some crazy scheme is the right reply.
    - jbpetersen 10y ago