3 ms·

As to the interjection that Signal is lacking a FBI canary - Moxie was clear on the subject: https://web.archive.org/web/20141027143819/https://github.com/Whis

by f0ff 6y ago

As to the interjection that Signal is lacking a FBI canary - Moxie was clear on the subject: https://web.archive.org/web/20141027143819/https://github.com/WhisperSystems/whispersystems.org/issues/34 https://web.archive.org/web/20141027143819/https://github.co...

LinuxBender 6y ago
The lawyers at my workplace have the same opinion as the lawyers Moxie spoke with.
ColanR 6y ago
The EFF reference at the bottom of that link provides a useful alternative position: > What’s the legal theory behind warrant canaries? > The First Amendment protects against compelled speech. For example, a court held that the New Hampshire state government could not require its citizens to have “Live Free or Die” on their license plates. While the government may be able to compel silence through a gag order, it may not be able to compel an ISP to lie by falsely stating that it has not received legal process when in fact it has. > Have courts upheld compelled speech? > Rarely. In a few instances, the courts have upheld compelled speech in the commercial context, where the government shows that the compelled statements convey important truthful information to consumers. For example, warnings on cigarette packs are a form of compelled commercial speech that have sometimes been upheld, and sometimes struck down, depending on whether the government shows there is a rational basis for the warning. > Have courts upheld compelled false speech? > No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. For example, Planned Parenthood challenged a requirement that physicians tell patients seeking abortions of an increased risk of suicidal ideation. The court found that Planned Parenthood did not meet its burden of showing that the disclosure was untruthful, misleading, or not relevant to the patent’s decision to have an abortion. > Are there any cases upholding warrant canaries? > Not yet. EFF believes that warrant canaries are legal, and the government should not be able to compel a lie. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, no one can guarantee success in litigation, but only deserve it.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  As counterpoint, the US Supreme Court held that Idahoans are obliged to advertise "famous potatoes" on their license tags. But potatoes really are famous (at least by Idaho standards) so it is just a fact and not an opinion. I guess.

by f0ff 6y ago

LinuxBender 6y ago

The lawyers at my workplace have the same opinion as the lawyers Moxie spoke with.

ColanR 6y ago

The EFF reference at the bottom of that link provides a useful alternative position: > What’s the legal theory behind warrant canaries? > The First Amendment protects against compelled speech. For example, a court held that the New Hampshire state government could not require its citizens to have “Live Free or Die” on their license plates. While the government may be able to compel silence through a gag order, it may not be able to compel an ISP to lie by falsely stating that it has not received legal process when in fact it has. > Have courts upheld compelled speech? > Rarely. In a few instances, the courts have upheld compelled speech in the commercial context, where the government shows that the compelled statements convey important truthful information to consumers. For example, warnings on cigarette packs are a form of compelled commercial speech that have sometimes been upheld, and sometimes struck down, depending on whether the government shows there is a rational basis for the warning. > Have courts upheld compelled false speech? > No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. For example, Planned Parenthood challenged a requirement that physicians tell patients seeking abortions of an increased risk of suicidal ideation. The court found that Planned Parenthood did not meet its burden of showing that the disclosure was untruthful, misleading, or not relevant to the patent’s decision to have an abortion. > Are there any cases upholding warrant canaries? > Not yet. EFF believes that warrant canaries are legal, and the government should not be able to compel a lie. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, no one can guarantee success in litigation, but only deserve it.

ncmncm 6y ago
As counterpoint, the US Supreme Court held that Idahoans are obliged to advertise "famous potatoes" on their license tags. But potatoes really are famous (at least by Idaho standards) so it is just a fact and not an opinion. I guess.