4 ms·
Is there any precedent for people not facing legal consequences for failing to update the canary? The subpoena probably says "and also update your warrant cana
by jrockway 3y ago
Is there any precedent for people not facing legal consequences for failing to update the canary? The subpoena probably says "and also update your warrant canary to say there were no legal requests." Now you're in contempt of court and in jail for 5 years while you wait for your "compelled speech" case to go to the Supreme Court.
In general, I think it usually goes poorly when programmers invent clever legal workarounds. The legal system isn't a computer program. It's guys with guns.
- buildbot 3y agoIsn’t the idea that the (US) government can’t (technically) compel you to lie?
- User23 3y agoThe process is the punishment.
- short_sells_poo 3y agoThat may be the case but if the cost of testing it is 5 years in jail while the case works it's way through the courts, few people will be willing to rely on it.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoThe better question is: are you (or PyPI in this case) interested in a legal tussle with the US Gov?
- tptacek 3y agoThe US compels certain kinds of speech all the time.
- dwheeler 3y agoThe US government is not compelling speech, it's compelling PyPI to accurately reveal to the US government the contents of past speech that PyPI has access to. Compelling disclosure of certain kinds of data, when it's known, is a normal part of legal actions in the US and probably elsewhere.
- akerl_ 3y agoYou seem to be describing what these subpoenas have requested. This thread is about canaries, and whether the government could compel a company to keep one updated against their will.
- mrguyorama 3y agoYou can beat the wrap but not the arrest.
- waselighis 3y agoI would think there are certain situations where a person might be compelled to lie, such as if you have a security clearance, have signed an NDA, or are acting as an informant. That is, a person may have to lie to prevent divulging classified or secret information through implication. EDIT: One situation where the government cannot compel you to lie is if it violates your fifth amendment rights (self incrimination).
- sigstoat 3y agothose are all things you actively agreed to, in advance, in exchange for some sort of consideration (job, not going to jail for illegal things you've already done, etc)
- linsomniac 3y ago"Just because you're right doesn't mean you won't go bankrupt in a court of law proving it."
- dennis_jeeves1 3y agoThat's real world wisdom...
- rossdavidh 3y agoI have never heard any legally competent source say that the U.S. government cannot (with warrant or whatever) compel you to lie. I'm pretty sure that, in the case of a canary, they can.
- asne11 3y agoPlease, we do it routinely. They're called "informants." At the end of the day if uncle Sam demandeth, uncle Sam will haveth.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 3y agoExactly. Warrant canaries are security theatre.
- actionfromafar 3y agoNot always, if the entity has a stance to uphold and the money to fight back, it doesn't have to be. If a mom-and-pop shop or open source org, it's a faint hope at best.
- burnished 3y agoCan a subpoena stipulate that?
- redox99 3y agoCan you provide any evidence of the US forcing someone to update their canary?
- snapcaster 3y agoHow would one even observe this evidence?
- metiscus 3y agoThe only way I can think of would be that after the case has ended it may be possible for a party who had been directed to update a canary under a court order to notify people that they had done that. It would probably depend on the court etc and I am not a lawyer.
- JohnFen 3y ago> The subpoena probably says "and also update your warrant canary to say there were no legal requests." I think that would be outside what can be done with a subpoena. It would require a court order.