6 ms·

If you care enough to post canaries, shouldn't you also care enough to just close shop instead of subtly telling your users to stop using your services?

adrusi 10y ago
I'd imagine that since lavabit NSLs make that harder if not illegal.
- tammer 10y ago
  its not within legal purview to force someone to continue doing something, is it?
  - cyphar 10y ago
    But they could order them to give them access to administer their servers, with acts of sabotage being punishable. There's no reason you should assume that the people running RiseUp right now are the same people that ran it a week ago.
  - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
    Even if you shut down immediately (more on that in a moment), you can't wipe your storage and The State can still look through that And if it is an ongoing investigation, shutting down immediately may be very difficult. Unless you can make a compelling case that you were already doing so for whatever reason, it is a very clear textbook case of obstruction of justice/interfering with an ongoing investigation.
dingaling 10y ago
Or at least care enough to update them more than once a quarter... worse than useless, since those Unspeakable Agencies will have had their fill of information by then. And then the canary dies and people panic into moving their hosting to 'stay private'.
egeozcan 10y ago
They just tweeted that they have no plans of doing so https://twitter.com/riseupnet/status/800815181190217729 https://twitter.com/riseupnet/status/800815181190217729
- llamataboot 10y ago
  which means either they haven't received anything, in which case why not update the canary. That the orders were very limited in scope and they think they could keep operating safely. Or that they have been ordered not to shut down. Ambiguous tweet is ambiguous, though it's telling that they made it and still did not update the canary.
tristor 10y ago
You mean like CryptoStorm's famous `Privacy Seppuku` pledge? https://cryptostorm.is/seppuku.html https://cryptostorm.is/seppuku.html

adrusi 10y ago

I'd imagine that since lavabit NSLs make that harder if not illegal.

tammer 10y ago
its not within legal purview to force someone to continue doing something, is it?
- cyphar 10y ago
  But they could order them to give them access to administer their servers, with acts of sabotage being punishable. There's no reason you should assume that the people running RiseUp right now are the same people that ran it a week ago.
- CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
  Even if you shut down immediately (more on that in a moment), you can't wipe your storage and The State can still look through that And if it is an ongoing investigation, shutting down immediately may be very difficult. Unless you can make a compelling case that you were already doing so for whatever reason, it is a very clear textbook case of obstruction of justice/interfering with an ongoing investigation.

dingaling 10y ago

Or at least care enough to update them more than once a quarter... worse than useless, since those Unspeakable Agencies will have had their fill of information by then. And then the canary dies and people panic into moving their hosting to 'stay private'.

egeozcan 10y ago

They just tweeted that they have no plans of doing so https://twitter.com/riseupnet/status/800815181190217729 https://twitter.com/riseupnet/status/800815181190217729

llamataboot 10y ago
which means either they haven't received anything, in which case why not update the canary. That the orders were very limited in scope and they think they could keep operating safely. Or that they have been ordered not to shut down. Ambiguous tweet is ambiguous, though it's telling that they made it and still did not update the canary.

tristor 10y ago

You mean like CryptoStorm's famous `Privacy Seppuku` pledge? https://cryptostorm.is/seppuku.html https://cryptostorm.is/seppuku.html