4 ms·

I'm not sure warrant canaries are particularly useful anymore. Yes, it's nice to know when a company has received a secret order or request for cooperation. How

I'm not sure warrant canaries are particularly useful anymore. Yes, it's nice to know when a company has received a secret order or request for cooperation. However, any company that stores user information is going to receive such an order or request at some point, it's practically inevitable. Furthermore, one can never be assured that a canary is entirely reliable as a signal -- just look at the other comments with conjecture as to why a canary might be removed. Thus I would conclude that the use of a warrant canary should not be taken as conveying any useful information about a company, or not any more useful information that a mere marketing statement that they are sympathetic with user privacy concerns.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> Furthermore, one can never be assured that a canary is entirely reliable as a signal -- just look at the other comments with conjecture as to why a canary might be removed. I would treat the removal of a canary as I would a fire alarm. Sure, it's possible that it's a business decision, just like it's possible that the fire alarm is a false alarm. But I'd rather make the assumption that is most likely to protect me.
- zekevermillion 10y ago
  Fair point. I would make that assumption from the beginning though, regardless of whatever the service provider tells me. It's a shame though, as the warrant canary is such an ingenious legal device that I have to admire it even as I doubt its usefulness.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    But if you make that assumption from the beginning, you can't use any of those services. It's like assuming that every building you enter is on fire.
    - zekevermillion 10y ago
      You can and (probably) do use many such services, and they're all going to give up your info as soon as any governmental authority asks nicely. It's a trade-off that many of us who aren't Richard Stallman make everyday, for example to use gmail. Or even the postal service. I throw out all kinds of personal mail in my garbage, and if anyone has read it (aside from the occasional raccoon in search of rotting pizza) I would be surprised but not terribly alarmed.
- corobo 10y ago
  "Warning. Warning. Your user information may have been passed on to <whoever>" Ok now what?
DavideNL 10y ago
> I'm not sure warrant canaries are particularly useful anymore > However, any company that stores user information is going to receive such an order or request at some point, it's practically inevitable. I assume you are talking about the U.S. only ? There are many other countries in the world, where gag-orders are not legally possible, or not as common as in the U.S. I would say warrant canaries are still useful there.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Which countries in the world don't have legally possible gag orders?
  - DavideNL 10y ago
    Quote from the article: "However other non-US based encrypted comms companies, such as Germany’s Tutanota, do continue to maintain a warrant canary for transparency and good practice purposes, despite not being subject to legal gag orders in the country where they are based."
794CD01 10y ago
The wording of your statement incorrectly implies that warrant canaries were ever useful.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> Furthermore, one can never be assured that a canary is entirely reliable as a signal -- just look at the other comments with conjecture as to why a canary might be removed. I would treat the removal of a canary as I would a fire alarm. Sure, it's possible that it's a business decision, just like it's possible that the fire alarm is a false alarm. But I'd rather make the assumption that is most likely to protect me.

zekevermillion 10y ago
Fair point. I would make that assumption from the beginning though, regardless of whatever the service provider tells me. It's a shame though, as the warrant canary is such an ingenious legal device that I have to admire it even as I doubt its usefulness.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  But if you make that assumption from the beginning, you can't use any of those services. It's like assuming that every building you enter is on fire.
  - zekevermillion 10y ago
    You can and (probably) do use many such services, and they're all going to give up your info as soon as any governmental authority asks nicely. It's a trade-off that many of us who aren't Richard Stallman make everyday, for example to use gmail. Or even the postal service. I throw out all kinds of personal mail in my garbage, and if anyone has read it (aside from the occasional raccoon in search of rotting pizza) I would be surprised but not terribly alarmed.
corobo 10y ago
"Warning. Warning. Your user information may have been passed on to <whoever>" Ok now what?

DavideNL 10y ago

> I'm not sure warrant canaries are particularly useful anymore > However, any company that stores user information is going to receive such an order or request at some point, it's practically inevitable. I assume you are talking about the U.S. only ? There are many other countries in the world, where gag-orders are not legally possible, or not as common as in the U.S. I would say warrant canaries are still useful there.

linkregister 10y ago
Which countries in the world don't have legally possible gag orders?
- DavideNL 10y ago
  Quote from the article: "However other non-US based encrypted comms companies, such as Germany’s Tutanota, do continue to maintain a warrant canary for transparency and good practice purposes, despite not being subject to legal gag orders in the country where they are based."

794CD01 10y ago

The wording of your statement incorrectly implies that warrant canaries were ever useful.