4 ms·
Will you have something like a warrant canary [1] to let users know in case there ever is a compromise of security? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_c
by marmaduke 7y ago
Will you have something like a warrant canary [1] to let users know in case there ever is a compromise of security?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- soulofmischief 7y agoA warrant canary isn't proof of anything.
- conanbatt 7y agoA lack of one is.
- Spare_account 7y agoI've often wondered whether or not a sufficiently well worded warrant could require that the warrant canary remains published unchanged, rendering the warrant canary useless.
- drdaeman 7y agoThe idea behind the canaries is that they expire, and that one cannot legally force someone to sign false statements. So if no new canary is published when the old one expires, that's a red flag.
- gvfff 7y agoPlease. A receipt for a $10 wrench and any IT guy will crumble. That wouldn’t even be illegal, since they never hit you with a wrench - you just imagined they were about to go xkcd on you
- aoeusnth1 7y agoCan you add some substance to this? Why do you think warrant canaries are weak?
- soulofmischief 7y agoIf you can be compelled to be silent while breaking constitutional guidelines on the basis of national security, you can be compelled to update a beacon. Warrant canaries are nice to have, but viewing them as something which provides proof of absence of government meddling is incorrect.
- nradov 7y agoPerhaps, but that legal theory has never been tested in US federal court (as far as we know). It's entirely possible that the judicial branch wouldn't allow the executive branch to force private citizens into actively making false statements.
- soulofmischief 7y agoRight. My whole point is that there are unknowns in the equation which render the proposition void.
- fragmede 7y agoWarrant canaries haven't been tested in court. (They have been used as notification of an NSL though.) In particular, judges are human beings, not robots, so the laws are interpreted and implemented by humans. Because they're not robots, removing a warrant canary toes the line on communicating to the affected, in violation of an NSL. Thus, removal of the canary most likely means an NSL was received, but the canary staying up doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't an NSL. Lawyers at every organization have considered the situation and advised their client, but those lawyers are not at the FBI.
- ChristianBundy 7y agoI don't think you're meant to remove warrant canaries when you get a secret court order, you're just meant to continue renewing your warrant canary at a regular interval as long as you don't get a secret court order. My understanding is that they can prevent you from removing warrant canaries but they can't force you to continue announcing "I have not received a secret warrant".