5 ms·

That a good question. I don't know how related it is, but I haven't seen anything about the legality or illegality of warrant canaries[1], so there might be som

That a good question. I don't know how related it is, but I haven't seen anything about the legality or illegality of warrant canaries[1], so there might be something to it. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

onetimemanytime 8y ago
So the law says NOT to notify users about secret subpoenas. If you do, no matter how cute you think your method is, IMO, you broke the law. Oh, but just I took a file offline. Nope. The law can be unjust but that's another thing.
- 6nf 8y ago
  But I didnt even take a file offline. I just forgot to update it.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    So you've updated it 45 times and the time you "forgot" to update coincided with the time you got the secret order?
    - sudhirj 8y ago
      Isn’t there a free speech aspect to canaries? Can the court force someone to publicly tell an explicit lie?
      - martin1975 8y ago
        only if you're covert working for 3 lettered agencies can you lie and get away with it. Though they'd get you out some other way to avoid blowing your cover.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - onetimemanytime 8y ago
        I would argue that you brought yourself in this mess. The only valid reason for having a canary is to evade the requirements of the law, so you can't complain. It's an argument, I'm no fan of secret orders or the government telling you to lie or keep quiet.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Fundamental rights generally override "you got yourself into this mess", don't they?
        coldtea 8y ago
        Well, the right to freedom of movement can be taken away if you've taken yourself into a mess that ends you in prison (and in tens of other cases for that matter).
        danso 8y ago
        Fundamental rights can be in conflict with each other. It's not uncommon for a judge to impose gag orders, which ostensibly protects a fair trial, but infringes on a person's rights to talk about a case in public.
      - zaarn 8y ago
        A NSL or similar already prevents you from saying something and limits your free speech. The court will, either way, not be impressed by someone communicating that they got a warrant by not communicating in a previously arranged manner (this is basically communicating in a code language).
  - yardstick 8y ago
    I’d expect a court to find against this in the same way it would find against someone communicating the information in a foreign language. It’s the intent and how you use the file that matters to them.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      The sticking point is whether you can be compelled to proactively lie by an NSL (when an NSL is actually a gag order, preventing you from talking about NSLs), given freedom-of-speech in the US. But quite a few people agree with you that courts probably wouldn't care about this level of pedantry[1]. [1]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_outla.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...
- cyphar 8y ago
  That's not how warrant canaries work, though there is no case law I'm aware of that determines whether or not they are actually legal. The idea is that you have a message you update regularly to specify whether you have received an NSL -- you never delete the latest version. If you get an NSL you comply by doing nothing (and by your inactivity you've signalled that the warrant canary was tripped). There is a valid freedom-of-speech question (at least in the US) about whether you can be compelled to continue updating the message -- you can be forced to be silent but can you be forced to proactively lie when the NSL forced you to be silent? Though, of course, they could subpoena the signing key for the canary and destroying the key would be destruction of evidence. A quorum system for signing might be more robust against this, but I have my doubts. And of course quite a few folks think that warrant canaries wouldn't work in any case[1]. [1]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_outla.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...
  - CathyWest 8y ago
    Schneier is right. Warrant canaries are just another side of the same coin as the sovereign citizen movement. Word games and magical thinking is not going to fool any judges. While I do think secret warrants are unjust most of the time (and nobody can verify that they are justly applied when applied), the intent of the law is obviously to not let anyone know about the warrant, if you do you have broken the law regardless of how you did it. Any judge that rules otherwise is engaging in judicial activism.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      Maybe, though I would say that it is odd that some companies (who presumably have legal council) have decided to implement warrant canaries. Quite a few have "activated" them, though it's quite possible some lawyer told them to knock it off. It is at least a little less crazy than arguing that you are a free inhabitant and that you don't need a drivers' license. In Australia we have an explicit law which makes it illegal to talk about the existence or non-existence of a journalist surveillance warrant (though in Australia you might not even be aware of such a warrant's existence). This means that any discussion of such warrants is technically illegal -- making warrant canaries impossible to implement here. The minimum sentence is 2 years, and it's specifically targeted toward journalists (and affects anyone who shares already-public information -- so retweeting such a story on Twitter would be a serious crime).
Joeri 8y ago
Further down the wikipedia page there’s a link to moxie marlinspike saying warrant canaries don’t work because not updating them is legally the same as disclosing you’ve received a secret warrant. In other words, you have to lie in your canary or violate the warrant.
- briandear 8y ago
  Has that been tested at the appellate level? The government can compel silence (gag orders,) but the government can’t compel speech, which is what updating a warrant canary is. This seems to be ready made for the Supreme Court.
  - hnick 8y ago
    There's also the question of a more manual implementation, rather than a self-initiated statement. If someone just so happens to ask me on Twitter each day if I received an order, and I say no, but on day 99 I don't reply or say "I'd rather not answer", does that muddy the waters a little?

onetimemanytime 8y ago

So the law says NOT to notify users about secret subpoenas. If you do, no matter how cute you think your method is, IMO, you broke the law. Oh, but just I took a file offline. Nope. The law can be unjust but that's another thing.

6nf 8y ago
But I didnt even take a file offline. I just forgot to update it.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  So you've updated it 45 times and the time you "forgot" to update coincided with the time you got the secret order?
  - sudhirj 8y ago
    Isn’t there a free speech aspect to canaries? Can the court force someone to publicly tell an explicit lie?
    - martin1975 8y ago
      only if you're covert working for 3 lettered agencies can you lie and get away with it. Though they'd get you out some other way to avoid blowing your cover.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      I would argue that you brought yourself in this mess. The only valid reason for having a canary is to evade the requirements of the law, so you can't complain. It's an argument, I'm no fan of secret orders or the government telling you to lie or keep quiet.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        Fundamental rights generally override "you got yourself into this mess", don't they?
        coldtea 8y ago
        Well, the right to freedom of movement can be taken away if you've taken yourself into a mess that ends you in prison (and in tens of other cases for that matter).
        danso 8y ago
        Fundamental rights can be in conflict with each other. It's not uncommon for a judge to impose gag orders, which ostensibly protects a fair trial, but infringes on a person's rights to talk about a case in public.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      A NSL or similar already prevents you from saying something and limits your free speech. The court will, either way, not be impressed by someone communicating that they got a warrant by not communicating in a previously arranged manner (this is basically communicating in a code language).
- yardstick 8y ago
  I’d expect a court to find against this in the same way it would find against someone communicating the information in a foreign language. It’s the intent and how you use the file that matters to them.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    The sticking point is whether you can be compelled to proactively lie by an NSL (when an NSL is actually a gag order, preventing you from talking about NSLs), given freedom-of-speech in the US. But quite a few people agree with you that courts probably wouldn't care about this level of pedantry[1]. [1]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_outla.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...
cyphar 8y ago
That's not how warrant canaries work, though there is no case law I'm aware of that determines whether or not they are actually legal. The idea is that you have a message you update regularly to specify whether you have received an NSL -- you never delete the latest version. If you get an NSL you comply by doing nothing (and by your inactivity you've signalled that the warrant canary was tripped). There is a valid freedom-of-speech question (at least in the US) about whether you can be compelled to continue updating the message -- you can be forced to be silent but can you be forced to proactively lie when the NSL forced you to be silent? Though, of course, they could subpoena the signing key for the canary and destroying the key would be destruction of evidence. A quorum system for signing might be more robust against this, but I have my doubts. And of course quite a few folks think that warrant canaries wouldn't work in any case[1]. [1]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_outla.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...
- CathyWest 8y ago
  Schneier is right. Warrant canaries are just another side of the same coin as the sovereign citizen movement. Word games and magical thinking is not going to fool any judges. While I do think secret warrants are unjust most of the time (and nobody can verify that they are justly applied when applied), the intent of the law is obviously to not let anyone know about the warrant, if you do you have broken the law regardless of how you did it. Any judge that rules otherwise is engaging in judicial activism.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Maybe, though I would say that it is odd that some companies (who presumably have legal council) have decided to implement warrant canaries. Quite a few have "activated" them, though it's quite possible some lawyer told them to knock it off. It is at least a little less crazy than arguing that you are a free inhabitant and that you don't need a drivers' license. In Australia we have an explicit law which makes it illegal to talk about the existence or non-existence of a journalist surveillance warrant (though in Australia you might not even be aware of such a warrant's existence). This means that any discussion of such warrants is technically illegal -- making warrant canaries impossible to implement here. The minimum sentence is 2 years, and it's specifically targeted toward journalists (and affects anyone who shares already-public information -- so retweeting such a story on Twitter would be a serious crime).

Joeri 8y ago

Further down the wikipedia page there’s a link to moxie marlinspike saying warrant canaries don’t work because not updating them is legally the same as disclosing you’ve received a secret warrant. In other words, you have to lie in your canary or violate the warrant.

briandear 8y ago
Has that been tested at the appellate level? The government can compel silence (gag orders,) but the government can’t compel speech, which is what updating a warrant canary is. This seems to be ready made for the Supreme Court.
- hnick 8y ago
  There's also the question of a more manual implementation, rather than a self-initiated statement. If someone just so happens to ask me on Twitter each day if I received an order, and I say no, but on day 99 I don't reply or say "I'd rather not answer", does that muddy the waters a little?