4 ms·
Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or
by sulam 3y ago
Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
- LorenPechtel 3y agoYes and no. They can say "don't do anything". They can't say "don't avoid doing something." That's the point if the age of the warrant canary notification--they stopped updating it. This is in effect a dead canary, they're saying they are subject to an order they can't disclose.
- 93po 3y agoIs there a precedent for compelling speech, even with something like an NSL?
- EGreg 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#:~:text=Peterson%20argued%20that%20the%20law,criminalize%20using%20non%2Dpreferred%20pronouns https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#:~:text=Pet....
- zaksoup 3y agoWhy is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
- TylerE 3y agoProbably the giant “United States” section with dozens of examples?
- Dylan16807 3y agoBut they linked a specific section, and it wasn't the United States section.
- apostacy 3y agoI do not think that the United States section of that article is valid. It seems to equate speech with communication. It does not feel right to call an IRS tax return "speech".
- callalex 3y agoThis forum requires a basic assumption of good faith for posters, especially when it comes to such a trivial mistake like having the wrong anchor section on a link to a short article. It was probably an artifact of their browser trying to be “helpful” when they were copying the link to the full article. Your aggression is unwarranted.
- flangola7 3y agoWhat aggression? Nothing they said was aggressive.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoNo aggression I can see, remember the good faith assumption!
- DropInIn 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36944821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36944821 was particularly bad. We ban accounts that do that kind of thing, so please don't again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- DropInIn 3y ago[flagged]
- devman0 3y agoCompelled speech has lots of examples from warning labels, disclosures, truth in advertising, etc. What you should be asking is their precedent for compelled false speech, which is a much more interesting and difficult to answer.
- philwelch 3y agoNot just that, but compelled false advertising—false advertising itself already being a federal crime.
- yencabulator 3y agoMany of those seem to be "you cannot do this legally codified activity unless you also fulfill the requirements enumerated therein". Can't sell food in retail setting without labeling it as required in the law that regulates food sales, and so on. That seems separate from compelling a creation of a false statement unrelated to business activity.
- nradov 3y agoPerhaps, but until there's a test case we're all just guessing. So far the Supreme Court has been fairly strict in following the compelled speech doctrine. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/30/compelled-speech https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/30/co...
- causality0 3y agoCompelled speech of any kind has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. Also many companies have triggered their canaries, including Apple, Silent Circle, and Reddit. If Apple's legal department considers it valid I'm inclined to agree with them absent positive evidence of the contrary.
- abigail95 3y agoWhat's more likely, they removed it to signal they think canaries are a legal uncertainty or because of something else?
- yencabulator 3y agoIf they don't think warrant canaries are legally doable, wouldn't they have put out a statement saying that?
- Clamchop 3y agoUntested except obliquely but it is a compelling idea given the tests of the first that we've seen so far.