3 ms·
I'm pretty sure that this strategy won't hold up in court. If you have a sign that indicates that a secret event have not happened, the intent of removing the
by kpil 8y ago
I'm pretty sure that this strategy won't hold up in court.
If you have a sign that indicates that a secret event have not happened, the intent of removing the sign is to indicate that the secret event did happen.
The intent is particularly obvious to the originator of the secret event, so you won't be able to argue in the court that it was entirely coincidental.
- iambateman 8y agoI agree. Could you have a canary community that calls companies once/quarter and specifically asks the NSL question? Seems safer for the companies themselves.
- astrange 8y agoThe legal system doesn't appreciate cleverness and you get negative points for trying. Either everything would work or nothing will.
- astrange 8y agoWarrant canaries have reasonable precedent in the US because of the First Amendment. See New York Times Co. v. United States. This isn't true and they probably don't work in any other country in the world. They're explicitly illegal in Australia, apparently.
- joesb 8y agoOn the other hand, if I actually have a sign indicates that some secret event have not happened, how can I remove that sign if I truely believe I don't wanna keep telling the world that it have not happened? If I remove the sign just because I no longer want to keep the sign up and someone takes it to mean that the secret event did happen, when it really didn't happen, do they have ground to sue me for fraud or lying?