4 ms·
> (in the case of certain types of national security-related requests in the United States like national security letters) from publicly acknowledging receiving
by tmcpro 10y ago
> (in the case of certain types of national security-related requests in the United States like national security letters) from publicly acknowledging receiving it, such as in a transparency report like this one. (To date, we have not received a national security letter or other similar request that would limit our ability to disclose it here)
They have included a warrant canary
- tswartz 10y agoI like that they've done this. Are there examples of companies that have done this and users or the media noticed when they removed it?
- unimpressive 10y agohttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/reddit-removes-warrant-canary-from-its-latest-transparency-report/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/reddit-removes-wa...
- pseudometa 10y agoReddit did. https://m.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4ct1kz/reddit_deletes_surveillance_warrant_canary_in/ https://m.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4ct1kz/reddit_dele...
- mikeryan 10y agoApple - https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappears-suggesting-new-patriot-act-demands/ https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappea...
- dimino 10y agoWarrant canaries make zero sense, the court would simply require you keep your warrant canary as part of its order.
- philsnow 10y agoFrom what I understand, the way canaries are supposed to work is, you keep publishing a document every day / week / whatever, that includes a phrase like "Today is 2016-09-02, and we have not received any national security letters or gag orders". When you receive an NSL, you either publish a document including the phrase "Today is 2016-09-03." or else simply stop publishing that document and leave the one with the old date up, and let people draw their own conclusions. Under this scheme, the court would have to compel speech on your part (force you to publish a new canary), but there's some precedent that might indicate that you can tell them to stuff it.
- mseebach 10y agoCourts can generally compel you to do things, especially things you don't want to do (otherwise the compelling bit is redundant). Also, from other people's writing on the subject, I gather that courts aren't all that keen on sophistry and schemes, especially those specifically invented to anticipate and circumvent a specific order from the court.
- URSpider94 10y agoIn the USA, courts generally can't compel you to speak. They do not have the power to force someone to utter or write words against their own free will. Forcing someone to continue publishing a statement saying that a warrant has not been received would be against understood Constitutional precedent.
- mseebach 10y agoMoxie Marlinspike: If it's illegal to advertise that you've received a court order of some kind, it's illegal to intentionally and knowingly take any action that has the effect of advertising the receipt of that order. A judge can't force you to do anything, but every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a "canary" you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something. https://github.com/WhisperSystems/whispersystems.org/issues/34#issuecomment-56448994 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/whispersystems.org/issues/... Bruce Schneier: Personally, I have never believed this trick would work. It relies on the fact that a prohibition against speaking doesn't prevent someone from not speaking. But courts generally aren't impressed by this sort of thing, and I can easily imagine a secret warrant that includes a prohibition against triggering the warrant canary. And for all I know, there are right now secret legal proceedings on this very issue. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_outla.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out... At the very least, the issue isn't clear-cut, and there most certainly isn't constitutional precedent.
- nstj 10y agoJust discovered that the original warrant canary (2005) was purportedly created by a librarian, being a sign in her library reading: “The FBI has not been here (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).”[0] [0]: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech525.pdf http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech525...
- SOLAR_FIELDS 10y agoWhy does everyone make such a huge deal about a warrant canary when LE is clearly aware of them and a true gag order would obviously preclude you from removing any such canaries?
- gizmo686 10y agoBecause it is not obvious that a gag order would preclude one from removing a warrent canarie. There has been no test cases on the subject, and there are few instances of the court upholding compelled speech. Further, the precedents that we do have for compelled speech have been based on the compelled speach being truthful (as well as a legitimate government interest in compelling the speach). This means that, irrespective of the law of the gag orders, one could make a very strong consitutional arguement for being allowed to remove the canary, and would have strong precedent.
- shalmanese 10y agoGiven that warrant canaries have already tripped, clearly it's not SOP for law enforcement to force warrant canaries to stay.
- notyourwork 10y agoYou should provide a reference, it would be helpful.
- enave 10y agoI'm surprised the government hasn't just sent a banal request to everyone along the lines of, "you are required to disclose every known space alien who uses your service and you are prohibited from disclosing this order." Every service then has to kill its canary.
- williamscales 10y agoProbably because a warrant canary would never hold up in court and they just don't care.
- Zigurd 10y agoNo cases where a warrant canary was removed to signal the possible receipt of an NSL have been prosecuted. Either all those warrant canaries were removed for other reasons, or prior restraint is still unconstitutional enough to keep prosecutors at bay.
- hackuser 10y ago... or the organizations did not remove the warrant canaries because their attorneys told them that they would go to jail.
- Zigurd 10y agoI'd like to know what legal theory would make it a crime to post a warrant canary.
- MichaelBurge 10y agoThey would consider it a violation of the National Security Letter.
- singlow 10y agoAt the time of posting, no security letter has been received. So it cannot violate a non-existent letter. If you assume that the letter could preclude you from removing the warrant, you just need a living canary. You post a new canary every day that you haven't received one. If it goes stale, you must have received a letter. There is no way that they can compel you to lie to the public and post a new canary after the letter.