3 ms·

I don't understand the value of a warrant canary: if it goes away or is not updated, what is the suggested action of users of the service? Is everyone supposed

by prirun 4y ago

I don't understand the value of a warrant canary: if it goes away or is not updated, what is the suggested action of users of the service? Is everyone supposed to leave? Because that ain't gonna happen, fortunately for the service. The bottom line to me is, encrypt your data before it leaves your control, and cross your fingers that whatever tool you used did it correctly. If the government wants to see which sites you are connecting to, it's easy enough for them to just ask Spectrum, Comcast, etc. So IMO, warrant canaries are useless.

heretoo 4y ago
What if the warrant canary is from the developers of the encryption software? See truecrypt -- assuming it was actually a warrant canary. Where "cross your fingers" is equivalent to the "warrant canary has not been revoked" when encryption is involved.
- prirun 4y ago
  > What if the warrant canary is from the developers of the encryption software? That seems useful. Thanks!
zamadatix 4y ago
None of these points really explain why a warrant canary can't have value it just explains why you in particular don't find value in it which isn't necessarily supposed to be surprising. Why is every user of a service supposed to care about something for it to have value in the service? Why is everyone supposed to agree on what level of connectivity obfuscation makes them feel comfortable? Why can't someone find value in simply knowing the government isn't monitoring how they use services without notice? If it has no impact on monitoring ability why would the government bother getting a warrant in the first place? Why can't someone be interested in knowing how pervasive invisible warrant requests are? Why should everyone equally be comfortable with just encrypting and calling it a day? Even though I don't really have any direct utility from a warrant canary (e.g. Reddit's warrant canary went away ~7 years ago and it didn't trigger any direct consequences with me using Reddit) I still find them useful and, knowing how relatively lax I am about privacy/security compared to many, I have no doubts many find direct use of them. For some other specific companies/services/projects though I could even see a warrant canary possibly having high direct value.
- prirun 4y ago
  > I still find them useful I guess that's what I was asking, is why or how? I didn't say they don't have value as a fact, I said I don't understand the value. Why are they useful to you, ie, what would you do with this knowledge if your storage service had a warrant canary and stopped updating it?
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    For me personally this one "Why can't someone be interested in knowing how pervasive invisible warrant requests are?" is my primary use out of them as I think more transparency in government surveillance is a net good for society but the point of that larger section was, independent of individual conclusions, if you phrase the same type of questions you started with in a more open ended way you get plenty of reasons a warrant canary has value and those are all examples.
rsync 4y ago
"I don't understand the value of a warrant canary: if it goes away or is not updated, what is the suggested action of users of the service?" It really depends on how you use rsync.net. The stated purpose of our product is: An empty UNIX filesystem to do anything you'd like with. So ... if you are using a sophisticated tool like 'borg'[1] or 'restic' or 'duplicity' then no action would be necessary. Your data at rsync.net is garbage ciphertext that we do not hold a key to. On the other hand, you may, as many thousands of people do, use rsync.net as a dead simple SFTP/SCP endpoint[2] and just copy files there. In this case your threat model and exposure is very different - but presumably you realize that. Yes, you are thinking correctly when you describe your bottom line as: "... encrypt your data before it leaves your control ..." ... and we encourage all of our customers to approach it this way. [1] https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ [2] https://rsync.net/products/sftp.html https://rsync.net/products/sftp.html
sowbug 4y ago
It's a kind of mutually assured destruction. It's not that "everyone" will leave. But the people the cops are targeting probably will. The tension reminds me of the Backpage/Craigslist Adult Services saga. Prostitution isn't legal in most of the US, but regardless of its legality, it will always exist. So, given the choice of having a place where they know prostitution is happening, and a place where they know it isn't, cops would prefer the former. Wild tangent follows. I promise it'll connect to the original thread. From a certain perspective, all discussions about personal rights are silly. Almost every free-speech case started with someone being an asshole. Fourth Amendment search & seizure cases almost always defend a person caught red-handed. Bitcoin is evil because it's used only for drugs and prostitution. And so on. Most of us live in a world where we don't ever need to assert our rights. As long as we're not an asshole, we don't have strange religious convictions, we aren't a journalist trying to expose outlandishness, we don't commit crimes, etc., then we can live our whole lives as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist. The problem with that observation is that the borders describing acceptable conduct are defined by something, and that something is our personal rights. If the Bill of Rights didn't exist, then "acceptable conduct" would surely be a smaller set of actions. We'd have less freedom, and we'd all miss the things we couldn't do. So the fact that nearly all controversy about personal rights seems silly (including the "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide!" argument) is extremely significant. If the average person thought these discussions were important, then society would already be feeling constrained by lack of freedom, and we'd be in bad shape -- dictatorship, surveillance state, etc. And if nobody discussed them at all, then we'd probably be in a state of chaos -- survival more important than freedom, etc. Having silly discussions about personal rights is probably right at the sweet spot. The only thing worse than believing Bitcoin is useless is living in a society where everyone believes it's essential! This is why it's OK to feel like a warrant canary is silly. You should. But you should also take very seriously the fact that you're able to feel it's silly. The moment you feel warrant canaries are important, it's too late for our society. (The word "silly" is mine, not yours, but I believe the sentiment is in the same neighborhood as your question.)

by prirun 4y ago

heretoo 4y ago

What if the warrant canary is from the developers of the encryption software? See truecrypt -- assuming it was actually a warrant canary. Where "cross your fingers" is equivalent to the "warrant canary has not been revoked" when encryption is involved.

prirun 4y ago
> What if the warrant canary is from the developers of the encryption software? That seems useful. Thanks!

zamadatix 4y ago

None of these points really explain why a warrant canary can't have value it just explains why you in particular don't find value in it which isn't necessarily supposed to be surprising. Why is every user of a service supposed to care about something for it to have value in the service? Why is everyone supposed to agree on what level of connectivity obfuscation makes them feel comfortable? Why can't someone find value in simply knowing the government isn't monitoring how they use services without notice? If it has no impact on monitoring ability why would the government bother getting a warrant in the first place? Why can't someone be interested in knowing how pervasive invisible warrant requests are? Why should everyone equally be comfortable with just encrypting and calling it a day? Even though I don't really have any direct utility from a warrant canary (e.g. Reddit's warrant canary went away ~7 years ago and it didn't trigger any direct consequences with me using Reddit) I still find them useful and, knowing how relatively lax I am about privacy/security compared to many, I have no doubts many find direct use of them. For some other specific companies/services/projects though I could even see a warrant canary possibly having high direct value.

prirun 4y ago
> I still find them useful I guess that's what I was asking, is why or how? I didn't say they don't have value as a fact, I said I don't understand the value. Why are they useful to you, ie, what would you do with this knowledge if your storage service had a warrant canary and stopped updating it?
- zamadatix 4y ago
  For me personally this one "Why can't someone be interested in knowing how pervasive invisible warrant requests are?" is my primary use out of them as I think more transparency in government surveillance is a net good for society but the point of that larger section was, independent of individual conclusions, if you phrase the same type of questions you started with in a more open ended way you get plenty of reasons a warrant canary has value and those are all examples.

rsync 4y ago

"I don't understand the value of a warrant canary: if it goes away or is not updated, what is the suggested action of users of the service?" It really depends on how you use rsync.net. The stated purpose of our product is: An empty UNIX filesystem to do anything you'd like with. So ... if you are using a sophisticated tool like 'borg'[1] or 'restic' or 'duplicity' then no action would be necessary. Your data at rsync.net is garbage ciphertext that we do not hold a key to. On the other hand, you may, as many thousands of people do, use rsync.net as a dead simple SFTP/SCP endpoint[2] and just copy files there. In this case your threat model and exposure is very different - but presumably you realize that. Yes, you are thinking correctly when you describe your bottom line as: "... encrypt your data before it leaves your control ..." ... and we encourage all of our customers to approach it this way. [1] https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ [2] https://rsync.net/products/sftp.html https://rsync.net/products/sftp.html

sowbug 4y ago

It's a kind of mutually assured destruction. It's not that "everyone" will leave. But the people the cops are targeting probably will. The tension reminds me of the Backpage/Craigslist Adult Services saga. Prostitution isn't legal in most of the US, but regardless of its legality, it will always exist. So, given the choice of having a place where they know prostitution is happening, and a place where they know it isn't, cops would prefer the former. Wild tangent follows. I promise it'll connect to the original thread. From a certain perspective, all discussions about personal rights are silly. Almost every free-speech case started with someone being an asshole. Fourth Amendment search & seizure cases almost always defend a person caught red-handed. Bitcoin is evil because it's used only for drugs and prostitution. And so on. Most of us live in a world where we don't ever need to assert our rights. As long as we're not an asshole, we don't have strange religious convictions, we aren't a journalist trying to expose outlandishness, we don't commit crimes, etc., then we can live our whole lives as if the Bill of Rights didn't exist. The problem with that observation is that the borders describing acceptable conduct are defined by something, and that something is our personal rights. If the Bill of Rights didn't exist, then "acceptable conduct" would surely be a smaller set of actions. We'd have less freedom, and we'd all miss the things we couldn't do. So the fact that nearly all controversy about personal rights seems silly (including the "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide!" argument) is extremely significant. If the average person thought these discussions were important, then society would already be feeling constrained by lack of freedom, and we'd be in bad shape -- dictatorship, surveillance state, etc. And if nobody discussed them at all, then we'd probably be in a state of chaos -- survival more important than freedom, etc. Having silly discussions about personal rights is probably right at the sweet spot. The only thing worse than believing Bitcoin is useless is living in a society where everyone believes it's essential! This is why it's OK to feel like a warrant canary is silly. You should. But you should also take very seriously the fact that you're able to feel it's silly. The moment you feel warrant canaries are important, it's too late for our society. (The word "silly" is mine, not yours, but I believe the sentiment is in the same neighborhood as your question.)