4 ms·

To me, it's still not clear if there is any legal basis for canaries via laws, case laws, etc. Anyone able to provide info on this?

by nxzero 10y ago

ncardozo 10y ago
No court has ever addressed the question. This post is still mostly current (in 2015, USA FREEDOM codified ranges similar to those discussed): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq
guelo 10y ago
As far as we know Reddit did not face any legal consequences when they activated their canary.
- Sacho 10y ago
  I think it's reasonable to speculate that their canary might as well have not existed for the purposes of determining legal consequence. Without the expected uproar over an agency forcing a canary down, the agency has no reason to apply legal pressure on the company. Thus, reddit's canary gives you no real information about the likely reaction of a govt agency to the practice, and certainly no information about a court's view on its legality.
cloudjacker 10y ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA no man, techies don't know anything about the legal system, you could get them excited about any random concoction aimed at subverting a governmental function. try it, pretend like it is gospel and they'll build entire business around it just for the rug to be pulled
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
I'd love to see the same. I'm having a hard time understanding why signaling that a gag order exists with the removal of a canary wouldn't violate the gag order.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Well, you could signal that by failing to renew the canary on schedule. Once there's a gag order, no signaling takes place. There's no "removal".
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Right, another name for a canary is a heartbeat, which are used in systems to know if a system is still up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing)
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Right, exactly. A heartbeat. And further, the signing key could be deleted securely, so coercion or spoofing would be impossible. That, however, would be an argumentally illegal action taken after the gag order. One could have an anonymous third party responsible for that. But then they have much power. And the signal to them would also be an argumentally illegal action taken after the gag order.
- joemi 10y ago
  This is pure speculation/assumption, but I'm guessing it's because the government can't compel someone to lie, or something like that. I have no citations for this, though... It's just what I always assumed when I heard about canaries. If, on the other hand, the government is allowed to compel someone to lie, I'd really like to know more about that...

To me, it's still not clear if there is any legal basis for canaries via laws, case laws, etc. Anyone able to provide info on this?

by nxzero 10y ago

To me, it's still not clear if there is any legal basis for canaries via laws, case laws, etc. Anyone able to provide info on this?

ncardozo 10y ago

No court has ever addressed the question. This post is still mostly current (in 2015, USA FREEDOM codified ranges similar to those discussed): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq

guelo 10y ago

As far as we know Reddit did not face any legal consequences when they activated their canary.

Sacho 10y ago
I think it's reasonable to speculate that their canary might as well have not existed for the purposes of determining legal consequence. Without the expected uproar over an agency forcing a canary down, the agency has no reason to apply legal pressure on the company. Thus, reddit's canary gives you no real information about the likely reaction of a govt agency to the practice, and certainly no information about a court's view on its legality.

cloudjacker 10y ago

HAHAHAHAHAHA no man, techies don't know anything about the legal system, you could get them excited about any random concoction aimed at subverting a governmental function. try it, pretend like it is gospel and they'll build entire business around it just for the rug to be pulled

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

fucking_tragedy 10y ago

I'd love to see the same. I'm having a hard time understanding why signaling that a gag order exists with the removal of a canary wouldn't violate the gag order.

mirimir 10y ago
Well, you could signal that by failing to renew the canary on schedule. Once there's a gag order, no signaling takes place. There's no "removal".
- nxzero 10y ago
  Right, another name for a canary is a heartbeat, which are used in systems to know if a system is still up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing)
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Right, exactly. A heartbeat. And further, the signing key could be deleted securely, so coercion or spoofing would be impossible. That, however, would be an argumentally illegal action taken after the gag order. One could have an anonymous third party responsible for that. But then they have much power. And the signal to them would also be an argumentally illegal action taken after the gag order.
joemi 10y ago
This is pure speculation/assumption, but I'm guessing it's because the government can't compel someone to lie, or something like that. I have no citations for this, though... It's just what I always assumed when I heard about canaries. If, on the other hand, the government is allowed to compel someone to lie, I'd really like to know more about that...