4 ms·

unpopular opinion: the main point of these canaries is PR. As far as I understand (and I understand nearly nothing about US law, so pinch of salt blah blah), ex

unpopular opinion: the main point of these canaries is PR. As far as I understand (and I understand nearly nothing about US law, so pinch of salt blah blah), exploiting legal loopholes is something that makes people excited and talk about your product, but doesn't really change anything in a court. If you assume the US govt is an adversary or potential adversary, and you assume that they are fairly powerful through direct and indirect influences, then I just can't imagine the NSA or whichever three-letter agency deals with this kind of thing going "oh no, they have canaries, can't do anything there" and going back to spying on private Facebook messages that old people send to each other or whatever they usually do in their free time

chki 8y ago
But isn't the primary point of the canaries to give people the information that the government has been requesting some sort of information? A secondary point would be that this might prevent the government from doing so in the first place.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  If the government has declared that giving people such information is illegal, it doesn't matter how that information is conveyed.
  - nradov 8y ago
    It absolutely does matter once the case comes before a federal court. Those cases are often decided based on very subtle issues of law and precedent, and they don't always go in the government's favor.
nabla9 8y ago
The way I understand the issue, it's complicated. It may or may not work. It can work in some country and not in some others. * A online warrant statement canary that disappears when it does not apply anymore. If there is a gag order preventing this Cloudfare promises to challenge this in the court. >if Cloudflare were asked to take an action violating one of the warrant canaries, we would pursue legal remedies challenging the request in order to protect our customers from what we believe are improper, illegal, or unconstitutional requests. * A periodically given statement. For example in annual letter to shareholders or periodic transparency update It's very hard or impossible for the western governments to force companies to give misleading statements to consumers and shareholders. * Caveat: If there is a gag order that prevents informing the people responsible for any public statements, nothing works. Usually the company lawyers know. For example: Coudfare HQ may not know what their workers in France are asked to do.
- SahAssar 8y ago
  > For example: Coudfare (sic) HQ may not know what their workers in France are asked to do. IIRC this is one of the things that the Chinese surveillance law includes, that it may force individuals at a company to provide them with information without alerting the normal channels in the company.
P_I_Staker 8y ago
What's to stop the courts and three letter orgs from strongarming you into continuing to send the canary? Couldn't they consider stopping a form of speech that violates a court order, in other words contempt.

chki 8y ago

But isn't the primary point of the canaries to give people the information that the government has been requesting some sort of information? A secondary point would be that this might prevent the government from doing so in the first place.

vonmoltke 8y ago
If the government has declared that giving people such information is illegal, it doesn't matter how that information is conveyed.
- nradov 8y ago
  It absolutely does matter once the case comes before a federal court. Those cases are often decided based on very subtle issues of law and precedent, and they don't always go in the government's favor.

nabla9 8y ago

The way I understand the issue, it's complicated. It may or may not work. It can work in some country and not in some others. * A online warrant statement canary that disappears when it does not apply anymore. If there is a gag order preventing this Cloudfare promises to challenge this in the court. >if Cloudflare were asked to take an action violating one of the warrant canaries, we would pursue legal remedies challenging the request in order to protect our customers from what we believe are improper, illegal, or unconstitutional requests. * A periodically given statement. For example in annual letter to shareholders or periodic transparency update It's very hard or impossible for the western governments to force companies to give misleading statements to consumers and shareholders. * Caveat: If there is a gag order that prevents informing the people responsible for any public statements, nothing works. Usually the company lawyers know. For example: Coudfare HQ may not know what their workers in France are asked to do.

SahAssar 8y ago
> For example: Coudfare (sic) HQ may not know what their workers in France are asked to do. IIRC this is one of the things that the Chinese surveillance law includes, that it may force individuals at a company to provide them with information without alerting the normal channels in the company.

P_I_Staker 8y ago

What's to stop the courts and three letter orgs from strongarming you into continuing to send the canary? Couldn't they consider stopping a form of speech that violates a court order, in other words contempt.