4 ms·

If you're that compromised, wouldn't it be much easier to just log and lie about it?

by eviks 3y ago

smith7018 3y ago
Lying about it opens you up to potential litigation and being exposed through discovery. It makes less sense to outwardly lie to paying customers rather than simply lie by omission.
- hinkley 3y ago
  I can just imagine EFF drooling over such a prospect.
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    The EFF wants a world where this kind of BS, and consequent litigation, is a thing of the past. If there's water running down their face, it's tears, not drool. We deserve a better world.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      You get there by either getting congress to pass laws or by setting legal precedent in the court. That’s the goal of the legal arm. Not to fight every bullshit civil liberties case, but to fight the last one that doesn’t get thrown out in court. If you don’t think they look forward to those cases, I think you’re the one who has read them wrong, not me.
CrazyPyroLinux 3y ago
this is what "warrant canaries" are for. dont use anyone who doesnt have one
- NegativeK 3y ago
  There should probably be case law before anyone actually believes in warrant canaries. 'If it's illegal to advertise that you've received a court order of some kind, it's illegal to intentionally and knowingly take any action that has the effect of advertising the receipt of that order. A judge can't force you to do anything, but every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a "canary" you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something. If any lawyers have a different legal interpretation, I'd love to hear it.' --Moxie Marlinspike
  - powersnail 3y ago
    What happens when someone asks you whether you have received a court order of some kind? Are you compelled by court to lie about it?
    - Jerrrry 3y ago
      "We must comply with legal subpoenas in the jurisdiction in which we operate,"
    - TheRealPomax 3y ago
      Why would someone have to lie? They can just say "We can't comment on that" without providing an answer. And then customers can go "sounds pretty suspicious, time to switch VPN services".
      - powersnail 3y ago
        That’s kinda my point. A canary removes all the middle ground between a yes and no. Which means no comment = yes. The parent comment implies that in such a case “no comment” is not compliant with the law, as it informs the inquirer. Hence the only way to comply is to answer “no”, which is a lie.
        TheRealPomax 3y ago
        Except "no comment" is not a yes. It's a "whether we do or don't, you are not part of that process and not privy to that information either way".
- Jerrrry 3y ago
  Literal security theatre.
- Terretta 3y ago
  > This is what "warrant canaries" are for. dont use anyone who doesnt have one What if they have one like this quarterly canary at privacy-forward "write.as" last updated 9 months ago? It should be noted with significance if this message fails to be updated on a quarterly basis. 2023-01-05 21:06:06 UTC No warrants have ever been served to Write.as, or Write.as principals or employees. https://write.as/privacy https://write.as/privacy --> https://write.as/canary.txt https://write.as/canary.txt
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    That means they're either asleep at the wheel or have already been served a warrant.

If you're that compromised, wouldn't it be much easier to just log and lie about it?

by eviks 3y ago

If you're that compromised, wouldn't it be much easier to just log and lie about it?

Lying about it opens you up to potential litigation and being exposed through discovery. It makes less sense to outwardly lie to paying customers rather than simply lie by omission.

hinkley 3y ago
I can just imagine EFF drooling over such a prospect.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  The EFF wants a world where this kind of BS, and consequent litigation, is a thing of the past. If there's water running down their face, it's tears, not drool. We deserve a better world.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    You get there by either getting congress to pass laws or by setting legal precedent in the court. That’s the goal of the legal arm. Not to fight every bullshit civil liberties case, but to fight the last one that doesn’t get thrown out in court. If you don’t think they look forward to those cases, I think you’re the one who has read them wrong, not me.

CrazyPyroLinux 3y ago

this is what "warrant canaries" are for. dont use anyone who doesnt have one

NegativeK 3y ago
There should probably be case law before anyone actually believes in warrant canaries. 'If it's illegal to advertise that you've received a court order of some kind, it's illegal to intentionally and knowingly take any action that has the effect of advertising the receipt of that order. A judge can't force you to do anything, but every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a "canary" you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something. If any lawyers have a different legal interpretation, I'd love to hear it.' --Moxie Marlinspike
- powersnail 3y ago
  What happens when someone asks you whether you have received a court order of some kind? Are you compelled by court to lie about it?
  - Jerrrry 3y ago
    "We must comply with legal subpoenas in the jurisdiction in which we operate,"
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    Why would someone have to lie? They can just say "We can't comment on that" without providing an answer. And then customers can go "sounds pretty suspicious, time to switch VPN services".
    - powersnail 3y ago
      That’s kinda my point. A canary removes all the middle ground between a yes and no. Which means no comment = yes. The parent comment implies that in such a case “no comment” is not compliant with the law, as it informs the inquirer. Hence the only way to comply is to answer “no”, which is a lie.
      - TheRealPomax 3y ago
        Except "no comment" is not a yes. It's a "whether we do or don't, you are not part of that process and not privy to that information either way".
Jerrrry 3y ago
Literal security theatre.
Terretta 3y ago
> This is what "warrant canaries" are for. dont use anyone who doesnt have one What if they have one like this quarterly canary at privacy-forward "write.as" last updated 9 months ago? It should be noted with significance if this message fails to be updated on a quarterly basis. 2023-01-05 21:06:06 UTC No warrants have ever been served to Write.as, or Write.as principals or employees. https://write.as/privacy https://write.as/privacy --> https://write.as/canary.txt https://write.as/canary.txt
- yencabulator 3y ago
  That means they're either asleep at the wheel or have already been served a warrant.