4 ms·
> Then if they do get an order that says they cannot discuss, they just don't post the canary. There's no need for this (anymore). You're already allowed to di
by geocar 10y ago
> Then if they do get an order that says they cannot discuss, they just don't post the canary.
There's no need for this (anymore). You're already allowed to disclose (coarsely) the number of NSL you've received[1].
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/366201412716018407143.pdf https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/366201412716018407...
> You can't force someone to say something in the US can you?
Unclear. The EFF believes you can't be compelled to lie, however you should consult an attorney with details of the specifics.
- mcherm 10y agoBeing allowed to say "I received between 0 and 999 NSLs affecting 0 to 999 customers" doesn't really convey the same information as a canary.
- shshhdhs 10y agoHow so? Enabling the canary only tells you that one or more was served/obeyed, and can't be used again. To me, 0-999 also tells me that one or more was served/obeyed.
- jasonkostempski 10y agoIs the rule actually 0-999? Because they'd have to get 1000 or more before you knew there was 1 or more.
- geocar 10y agoIt is four pages, the first page is mostly dedications and the last page is mostly blank. It will not take you much time to read the remaining two pages and develop your own understanding. Here is how I am parsing it: The Office of the Attorney General proposes two options: 1. Separate category reports for NSL, FISA content, and FISA non-content requests and customers affected. 2. A single report for all NSL and FISA requests, and a report for customers affected. If you want to distinguish between the different kind of request (category 1) then you can report in blocks of 1,000, while if you don't, you can report in blocks of 250.
- MereInterest 10y agoWith how untested warrant canaries are in the courts, I wonder how a more detailed scheme would work. Every day making 1000 public statements, each of the form "We have received no more than N NSLs."
- geocar 10y agoI don't think a court will be impressed with that.
- danarmak 10y ago> The EFF believes you can't be compelled to lie This always sounded fishy to me. When a NSL is served, they order you to keep silent about it, so you can't tell e.g. your own CISO. But if the CISO comes and asks, you're not ordered to lie and say you haven't received one? So if the CISO just asks you every morning, the NSL's order of keeping silent is defeated? I can't believe the courts and the executive that support NSLs in the first place would allow such a loophole.
- geocar 10y agoIf you find yourself in such a situation, you should consult with an attorney: Telling your CISO may put you and them at risk that you cannot understand.
- SpaceManiac 10y agoWhile maybe literally true, "risk that you cannot understand" is a little overthreatening. Are you implying extrajudicial financial ruin, torture, murder? I doubt it, so what?
- geocar 10y agoI'm trying not to imply anything, because every situation is different. Nevertheless, violating a federal order could have serious consequences, and if you need advice on this subject, you should talk to an attorney about it.
- dingaling 10y agoDo you think the average retained attorney will be well-versed in the subtleties of NSL disclosure? The point being made upthread is that there is no black and white guidance, there is no secret NSL Guide Book for attornies.
- geocar 10y agoYes, actually I do. Gag orders aren't unique to the NSL and if your attorney believes the case is too complicated they will be able to help you find a specialist. The FBI does in fact has some guidance that your attorney will be able to locate[1] [1]: https://vault.fbi.gov/National%20Security%20Letters%20%28NSL%29/National%20Security%20Letters%20%28NSL%29%20Part%201%20of%201/view https://vault.fbi.gov/National%20Security%20Letters%20%28NSL...