4 ms·

Which is why "proper" canaries are signed and manually updated with an expiration date. Refusing to add a new canary past the expiration date has the same effe

by devmor 4y ago

Which is why "proper" canaries are signed and manually updated with an expiration date. Refusing to add a new canary past the expiration date has the same effect, but is only done through inaction.

ffssffss 4y ago
Judges in regular courts really don't like "one weird trick" style legal arguments. I'm guessing judges in secret national security courts like them even less. Hence the skepticism that, in this circumstance, they wouldn't just order the site to update their canary and threaten the operators with charges themselves if they refuse.
- MacsHeadroom 4y ago
  Judges in the United States also don't like compelling speech. So compelling a private entity to repeatedly update a warrant canary is unlikely to be legal. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is the stated legal opinion of the lawyers at the EFF.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ffssffss 4y ago
    Indeed, the bar is (supposed to be) very high for this kind of thing. But at the same time, it feels like exactly the kind of "gotcha" that rarely flies, because the situation was so deliberately constructed. But without any (public?) litigation, it's anyone's guess what may happen.
jsjohnst 4y ago
But if it were that simple, couldn’t a provider have a page (say /canary/<user>.txt) that makes a similar attestation on a per user minute by minute basis, thus directly disclosing not just that there was a warrant, but for who? If the legal basis is protection against compelled speech, then logically that should be “ok” as the government “can’t” compel you to update it. I realize this is question is bordering on reductio ad absurdum, but not intentionally.
- devmor 4y ago
  If you were manually updating said document, sure. The government can't compel your speech... But if you had a script doing so, which is likely the case, you would have to modify it or direct it to stop updating, which would be a violation again.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    > If you were manually updating said document, sure. I don’t think it’ll be that cut and dry as others have stated articulately. > The government can't compel your speech That’s not true. The United States government can compel your speech, albeit in very limited cases.
Jack_Hacker 4y ago
>Storj Labs Inc. will also make available, monthly, a "warrant canary" in the form of a cryptographically signed message containing the following: >- a declaration that, up to that point, no warrants have been served, nor have any searches or seizures taken place >- a cut and paste headline from a major news source, establishing date >Special note should be taken if these messages ever cease being updated, or are removed from this page. >The current message is here: ...and then it goes blank.

by devmor 4y ago

Which is why "proper" canaries are signed and manually updated with an expiration date. Refusing to add a new canary past the expiration date has the same effect, but is only done through inaction.

ffssffss 4y ago

Judges in regular courts really don't like "one weird trick" style legal arguments. I'm guessing judges in secret national security courts like them even less. Hence the skepticism that, in this circumstance, they wouldn't just order the site to update their canary and threaten the operators with charges themselves if they refuse.

MacsHeadroom 4y ago
Judges in the United States also don't like compelling speech. So compelling a private entity to repeatedly update a warrant canary is unlikely to be legal. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is the stated legal opinion of the lawyers at the EFF.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ffssffss 4y ago
  Indeed, the bar is (supposed to be) very high for this kind of thing. But at the same time, it feels like exactly the kind of "gotcha" that rarely flies, because the situation was so deliberately constructed. But without any (public?) litigation, it's anyone's guess what may happen.

jsjohnst 4y ago

But if it were that simple, couldn’t a provider have a page (say /canary/<user>.txt) that makes a similar attestation on a per user minute by minute basis, thus directly disclosing not just that there was a warrant, but for who? If the legal basis is protection against compelled speech, then logically that should be “ok” as the government “can’t” compel you to update it. I realize this is question is bordering on reductio ad absurdum, but not intentionally.

devmor 4y ago
If you were manually updating said document, sure. The government can't compel your speech... But if you had a script doing so, which is likely the case, you would have to modify it or direct it to stop updating, which would be a violation again.
- jsjohnst 4y ago
  > If you were manually updating said document, sure. I don’t think it’ll be that cut and dry as others have stated articulately. > The government can't compel your speech That’s not true. The United States government can compel your speech, albeit in very limited cases.

Jack_Hacker 4y ago

>Storj Labs Inc. will also make available, monthly, a "warrant canary" in the form of a cryptographically signed message containing the following: >- a declaration that, up to that point, no warrants have been served, nor have any searches or seizures taken place >- a cut and paste headline from a major news source, establishing date >Special note should be taken if these messages ever cease being updated, or are removed from this page. >The current message is here: ...and then it goes blank.