4 ms·

Nice political response, well done. However you didn't address the issue of canaries and canaries being removed by you directly.

• senden9 4y ago
  Because by law it is forbidden to say if they are forced to give access by law. The removal of the canary together with that message without addressing that directly can be seen as strong hint that the where forced to give access.
• say_it_as_it_is 4y ago
  You must blow out the candles of other people's birthday cakes
  • unixhero 4y ago
    I am working in security and subjected to audits and do audits on others. This is the way we talk. Painstakingly explicit That this rubs some the wrong way, I can see. Charm is not a currency in this domain. I of course understand what you mean, but I don't feel like excusing my self for pointing out logical or factual flaws. I can say that while this is essentially a security discussion and not a dinner party conversation, I am nice to talk to :).
    • aae42 4y ago
      I think what the replier meant is that you don't seem to understand the concept of a warrant canary
      • unixhero 4y ago
        I see. That is totally possible.
• ls15 4y ago
  Canaries exist, because you cannot talk about the reasons for their removal. You just remove them.
• rOOb85 4y ago
  I think his response actually DID address the canary disappearing. By law he cannot say “Yes we have been issues a secret warrant” if they had been served, but if they had NOT been served he could legal say so. He directly acknowledges that this post is about the canary disappearing and doesn’t immediately explain why. If the canary vanished due to a script failing or a person forgetting to update it he would have loudly and clearly stated that they have not been served and the reason why the canary was not updated. Those facts, imo, HIGHLY suggest they have been served with a secret warrant.