3 ms·

I've been a happy customer for years. The contact is info@rsync.net - it's on the pricing page. I've emailed support a few times and they answer very promptly

by pteehan 10y ago

I've been a happy customer for years. The contact is info@rsync.net - it's on the pricing page. I've emailed support a few times and they answer very promptly. Rsync.net has been around forever - like 15 years. They predate the concept of 'cloud'. They were the first to use a 'warrant canary', in 2006. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary)

mhw 10y ago
They are also regulars here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rsync https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rsync and (for example) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13277835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13277835
rtpg 10y ago
RE the warrant canary: all legal analysis I've seen points to the canary being functionally useless. A court would throw out the defense immediately, removing a canary pointing out that a warrant has been served is the same as tweeting that you got a warrant. It's the minimal legal hack: completely useless in a court but massive generator of internet comments Though it generating discussion around the warrants themselves is a good feature
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  It's still useful as a rhetorical tool against enforcement. If someone gets imprisoned for saying "no comment" and refusing to actively lie, that would hopefully cause an enormous outrage.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  You don't "remove" a canary, you just stop updating it. The intent being that they can't force you to keep updating it.
  - type0 10y ago
    What if they could do it instead of you, even if you use distributed signing how difficult would it be?
  - rtpg 10y ago
    They can't force you. Just like they can't force you to not tweet. They can sure sue the hell out of you after you stop updating though.
    - SahAssar 10y ago
      The idea is that forced speech is different than free speech. That means that someone can force you to not say something, but not force you to say something.
      - rtpg 10y ago
        so there are two things: - The government cannot force you to update the canary. A court cannot get you to update it, because it's forced speech to demand an update. - You created the canary of your own accord, and are responsible for its effects. Not updating the canary is, effectively, speech. Though, from [0]: "Realistically, though, courts compel speech all the time. Court-ordered apologies, disclosures, and notices are not unusual. And if ever a court would be inclined to compel speech, it would be in a situation like this one, where a company intentionally set out to get around a gag order with this kind of convoluted sea-lawyering." [0]:http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/268/is-there-any-legal-theory-behind-warrant-canaries http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/268/is-there-any-lega...

by pteehan 10y ago

mhw 10y ago

They are also regulars here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rsync https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rsync and (for example) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13277835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13277835

rtpg 10y ago

RE the warrant canary: all legal analysis I've seen points to the canary being functionally useless. A court would throw out the defense immediately, removing a canary pointing out that a warrant has been served is the same as tweeting that you got a warrant. It's the minimal legal hack: completely useless in a court but massive generator of internet comments Though it generating discussion around the warrants themselves is a good feature

Dylan16807 10y ago
It's still useful as a rhetorical tool against enforcement. If someone gets imprisoned for saying "no comment" and refusing to actively lie, that would hopefully cause an enormous outrage.
StavrosK 10y ago
You don't "remove" a canary, you just stop updating it. The intent being that they can't force you to keep updating it.
- type0 10y ago
  What if they could do it instead of you, even if you use distributed signing how difficult would it be?
- rtpg 10y ago
  They can't force you. Just like they can't force you to not tweet. They can sure sue the hell out of you after you stop updating though.
  - SahAssar 10y ago
    The idea is that forced speech is different than free speech. That means that someone can force you to not say something, but not force you to say something.
    - rtpg 10y ago
      so there are two things: - The government cannot force you to update the canary. A court cannot get you to update it, because it's forced speech to demand an update. - You created the canary of your own accord, and are responsible for its effects. Not updating the canary is, effectively, speech. Though, from [0]: "Realistically, though, courts compel speech all the time. Court-ordered apologies, disclosures, and notices are not unusual. And if ever a court would be inclined to compel speech, it would be in a situation like this one, where a company intentionally set out to get around a gag order with this kind of convoluted sea-lawyering." [0]:http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/268/is-there-any-legal-theory-behind-warrant-canaries http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/268/is-there-any-lega...