7 ms·

0–249 National Security Orders received? > "we are not even allowed to say if we've received zero of these reports—we can only report information about these t

0–249 National Security Orders received? > "we are not even allowed to say if we've received zero of these reports—we can only report information about these types of requests in broad ranges" Interesting. What are they really telling us with that range? Could they not get away with saying "1–249"? Edit: Nevermind. The document they cite[0] clears it up. [0] https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/422201412716042240387.pdf https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/422201412716042240...

icehawk219 10y ago
I believe this is what the security canary used to be that companies would use to skirt the rules until the rules were changed. It used to be that you couldn't say how many you received but you could say you hadn't received any. Now you aren't even allowed to say that.
- petercooper 10y ago
  How does that work then? If I were American (I'm not) is it illegal for me to simply say or publish the sentence "I have received no National Security Orders"?
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Presumably not. But it is illegal for you to say "I have received one National Security Order this year". Hence warrant canaries: they basically consist of creating a strong expectation of a (permitted) negative statement, such that its absence will be noticed. So far it's believed that you can't be compelled to maintain a no-longer-accurate canary against your will. edit: Wait, I see what you're referring to. [citation needed], because as far as I know warrant canaries remain legal.
    - froh42 10y ago
      Holy shit. People in the land of the free discussing what they are legally allowed to say. Such tricks sound like stories from Soviet Russia that still linger around.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - lettergram 10y ago
        "only for national security" just like Russia
        86646 10y ago
        In United States of America, government owns you.
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        People have been discussing that in the USA since its inception.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Since when? Last I heard canaries were still going strong, although they're generally limited to one bit (letters: yes or no?) rather than any more detail.
- schneidmaster 10y ago
  No, nothing has changed on that front. If you have not received any National Security Letters, it is legal for you to say "I have never received an NSL" (as other commenters have suggested). Warrant canaries rely on the idea that it is much more legally difficult to compel speech than to restrict it. There is no (non-secret) case law indicating that a NSL recipient could be compelled to lie and include the warrant canary paragraph in a future transparency report, while there is case law indicating that NSL recipients can be prevented from actively disclosing the letter (gag orders are fairly well-established in particular aspects of our legal system). The reason why warrant canaries are binary is that once an NSL has been issued, the case law that the parent commenter linked comes into play: companies may only indicate in buckets how many they have received (0-249, 250-499, etc). So you couldn't have your warrant canary say "I have never received more than 3 NSLs" then "I have never received more than 5 NSLs" etc.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    So what happens if you make a range of canaries? e.g. - We have not received any requests in Q1 of 2016. - We have not received more than 50 requests in Q1 of 2016. - We have not received more than 100 requests in Q1 of 2016.
    - schneidmaster 10y ago
      If I understand your scenario, the problem is that you would have to remove all the canaries as soon as you receive your first NSL. As soon as you receive a NSL, you may only disclose the number of NSLs you have received in the buckets I mentioned above, so you would not be able to say "we have not received more than 50/100 requests;" you would only be able to say "we have received 0-249 requests." So the canary still only works to tell people that you have never received an NSL.
      - ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
        But I think the "novelty" in his scheme is that he has separate canaries for different time periods -- so it may not be helpful in letting users know the number of requests received, but it would allow them to know when they had been received. Assume he had a scheme that just said the following: We have received no NSL letters in Jan 2016 We have received no NSL letters in Feb 2016 We have received between 0 and 249 NSL letters in March 2016 We have received no NSL letters in Apr 2016
tibbon 10y ago
This confuses me too. I am allowed (as a private citizen or company who has never had an interaction with the feds) to say that I've had zero reports/requests like this right? Or is just uttering that a federal crime (did I just fuck up by saying that?) It would seem that it's perhaps illegal to say anything once you've gotten at least one of them, and they tell you that you can't do this anymore right?
- ChristianBundy 10y ago
  IANAL, but I believe you could say "I've had zero" until you get one, at which point you can only say "I've had between 0 and 249".
  - tibbon 10y ago
    So 0-249 really means, "probably at least 1, but I'm not allowed to say zero"
    - lukasubo 10y ago
      0-249 probably means 249.
      - andrewguenther 10y ago
        Probably not, per the official document[0]: > a provider may report aggregate data in the following separate categories: > The total number of all national security process received ... in the following bands: 0-249 and thereafter in bands of 250 [0] https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/422201412716042240387.pdf https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/422201412716042240...
      - ioquatix 10y ago
        Actually, 0-249 means -249 :D
      - jstoiko 10y ago
        0-249 probably means 125.
anonicode 10y ago
> Edit: Nevermind. The document they cite[0] clears it up. That didn't exactly clear it up for me. Would you mind saying how that clears it up? Does it really mean 1-249 after all?
- espadrine 10y ago
  It means in bands of 1000 starting with 0-999.
  - chc 10y ago
    Or bands of 250 if you classify things a different way. It offers both options.
- euyyn 10y ago
  Yes.
- ademarre 10y ago
  I still don't grok the dos and don'ts of NSLs and canaries, but that document establishes the origin of the range 0–249, which is expressly permitted. See also: https://canarywatch.org/faq.html https://canarywatch.org/faq.html I suspect they would not be using the 0–249 band if they were not gagged by a previous order. My uninformed interpretation is that they have received an NSL or FISA order, but not necessarily in 2015. So the 2015 number might be zero after all. Maybe someone more informed could confirm or debunk this interpretation.

icehawk219 10y ago

I believe this is what the security canary used to be that companies would use to skirt the rules until the rules were changed. It used to be that you couldn't say how many you received but you could say you hadn't received any. Now you aren't even allowed to say that.

petercooper 10y ago
How does that work then? If I were American (I'm not) is it illegal for me to simply say or publish the sentence "I have received no National Security Orders"?
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Presumably not. But it is illegal for you to say "I have received one National Security Order this year". Hence warrant canaries: they basically consist of creating a strong expectation of a (permitted) negative statement, such that its absence will be noticed. So far it's believed that you can't be compelled to maintain a no-longer-accurate canary against your will. edit: Wait, I see what you're referring to. [citation needed], because as far as I know warrant canaries remain legal.
  - froh42 10y ago
    Holy shit. People in the land of the free discussing what they are legally allowed to say. Such tricks sound like stories from Soviet Russia that still linger around.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - lettergram 10y ago
      "only for national security" just like Russia
      - 86646 10y ago
        In United States of America, government owns you.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      People have been discussing that in the USA since its inception.
Bartweiss 10y ago
Since when? Last I heard canaries were still going strong, although they're generally limited to one bit (letters: yes or no?) rather than any more detail.
schneidmaster 10y ago
No, nothing has changed on that front. If you have not received any National Security Letters, it is legal for you to say "I have never received an NSL" (as other commenters have suggested). Warrant canaries rely on the idea that it is much more legally difficult to compel speech than to restrict it. There is no (non-secret) case law indicating that a NSL recipient could be compelled to lie and include the warrant canary paragraph in a future transparency report, while there is case law indicating that NSL recipients can be prevented from actively disclosing the letter (gag orders are fairly well-established in particular aspects of our legal system). The reason why warrant canaries are binary is that once an NSL has been issued, the case law that the parent commenter linked comes into play: companies may only indicate in buckets how many they have received (0-249, 250-499, etc). So you couldn't have your warrant canary say "I have never received more than 3 NSLs" then "I have never received more than 5 NSLs" etc.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  So what happens if you make a range of canaries? e.g. - We have not received any requests in Q1 of 2016. - We have not received more than 50 requests in Q1 of 2016. - We have not received more than 100 requests in Q1 of 2016.
  - schneidmaster 10y ago
    If I understand your scenario, the problem is that you would have to remove all the canaries as soon as you receive your first NSL. As soon as you receive a NSL, you may only disclose the number of NSLs you have received in the buckets I mentioned above, so you would not be able to say "we have not received more than 50/100 requests;" you would only be able to say "we have received 0-249 requests." So the canary still only works to tell people that you have never received an NSL.
    - ChicagoBoy11 10y ago
      But I think the "novelty" in his scheme is that he has separate canaries for different time periods -- so it may not be helpful in letting users know the number of requests received, but it would allow them to know when they had been received. Assume he had a scheme that just said the following: We have received no NSL letters in Jan 2016 We have received no NSL letters in Feb 2016 We have received between 0 and 249 NSL letters in March 2016 We have received no NSL letters in Apr 2016

tibbon 10y ago

This confuses me too. I am allowed (as a private citizen or company who has never had an interaction with the feds) to say that I've had zero reports/requests like this right? Or is just uttering that a federal crime (did I just fuck up by saying that?) It would seem that it's perhaps illegal to say anything once you've gotten at least one of them, and they tell you that you can't do this anymore right?

ChristianBundy 10y ago
IANAL, but I believe you could say "I've had zero" until you get one, at which point you can only say "I've had between 0 and 249".
- tibbon 10y ago
  So 0-249 really means, "probably at least 1, but I'm not allowed to say zero"
  - lukasubo 10y ago
    0-249 probably means 249.
    - andrewguenther 10y ago
      Probably not, per the official document[0]: > a provider may report aggregate data in the following separate categories: > The total number of all national security process received ... in the following bands: 0-249 and thereafter in bands of 250 [0] https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/422201412716042240387.pdf https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/422201412716042240...
    - ioquatix 10y ago
      Actually, 0-249 means -249 :D
    - jstoiko 10y ago
      0-249 probably means 125.

anonicode 10y ago

> Edit: Nevermind. The document they cite[0] clears it up. That didn't exactly clear it up for me. Would you mind saying how that clears it up? Does it really mean 1-249 after all?

espadrine 10y ago
It means in bands of 1000 starting with 0-999.
- chc 10y ago
  Or bands of 250 if you classify things a different way. It offers both options.
euyyn 10y ago
Yes.
ademarre 10y ago
I still don't grok the dos and don'ts of NSLs and canaries, but that document establishes the origin of the range 0–249, which is expressly permitted. See also: https://canarywatch.org/faq.html https://canarywatch.org/faq.html I suspect they would not be using the 0–249 band if they were not gagged by a previous order. My uninformed interpretation is that they have received an NSL or FISA order, but not necessarily in 2015. So the 2015 number might be zero after all. Maybe someone more informed could confirm or debunk this interpretation.