3 ms·
My cynical suspicion is that they probably aren't getting warrants because as a US based online service that is specifically marketed to people interested in pr
by autoexec 5y ago
My cynical suspicion is that they probably aren't getting warrants because as a US based online service that is specifically marketed to people interested in privacy they've already been handed a national security letter that prevents them from telling anyone about it and the state is collecting every scrap of data DDG has in real time and shares some of that data with other agencies on a regular basis.
- 1123581321 5y agoIt’s possible; however, they can’t be compelled to actively lie. We would expect DDG communications on privacy to cease if they were compromised by NSL.
- autoexec 5y agoWould they have to be lying? They could say with total truth that they haven't gotten any search warrants because a national security letter is not a search warrant of any kind. It's an administrative subpoena. Search warrants have to target something specific. They've got very little to do with a national security letter authorizing the state to take every last scrap of data in real time "Room 641A" style
- Akronymus 5y agoUnless the national security letter also forces them to keep doing these communications. Pretty sure you can be forced to lie by such a letter. Not sure if that extends to being in a court though. Or if they would have to plead the 5th in such cases.
- 1123581321 5y agoYou cannot. You can only be indirectly forced to stop issuing a warrant canary due to incompatibility with requirements not to report, in narrow cases (stricter standards than standard letters.) This would go hand in hand with a request anyway, so removing the canary would still serve its purpose and that’s what other search engines have done. But there has been absolutely nothing compelling active, creative lies like what DDG would be writing here if compromised.