4 ms·

Great - can we replace it with a crow if it was the USA, a budgie if it was EU. a magpie if it was Israel, a woodpecker if it was China (etc) Green if it was t

by fish44 3y ago

Great - can we replace it with a crow if it was the USA, a budgie if it was EU. a magpie if it was Israel, a woodpecker if it was China (etc) Green if it was tax organisation and yellow if is a criminal one

diggan 3y ago
You kind of lose plausible deniability with that granularity, I'd guess.
superkuh 3y ago
Technically even just removing a warrant canary immediately could put you at legal risk in the USA. The non-risky way is to update the canary $date every $timeperiod and then stop updating $date after an attack. That way nothing is changed to indicate but it still becomes obvious by lack of update after $timeperiod.
- diggan 3y ago
  Yeah, that kind of irked me with the commit. Currently (769b306) it says: > this commit removes a section of the footer as we have received a voluntary enquiry from a state authority that included a requirement for confidentiality Which... is just saying what happened? Point is to remove it without saying anything, as if you do, you'd break the "requirement for confidentiality" and put yourself at risk.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    Imagine complying with a gag order. That's one of the most blatant abuses of human rights.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      It is. But when you're on the receiving end and the federal agents bust down your door and point firearms at you you see things a bit differently in the moment.
      - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        Agreed, but that's all the more reason to be louder and more defiant.
        int_19h 3y ago
        Not everyone wants to be a hero.
        zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        An hero
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      somehow it is hard to believe that this statement is made .. confidentiality and "gag orders" have ruled the business world for more than twenty years in the USA. Any executive of any public company (stocks) must demonstrate iron-clad compliance with these orders, every week of their employment. Asvmuch as anyone might agree with the aspirational poetry of this statement, it is literally ABCs of US dollar business that this is no joke. surely that is clear?
      - superkuh 3y ago
        This isn't business. This is the government using secret violent force to keep you from telling others you've been (legally) robbed. It does not involve a voluntary contract that one enters into willingly in the open. These are very different things. Surely that is clear?
        zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        Exactly. This isn't a voluntary contract
        mistrial9 3y ago
        One extreme (no demand on me is fair) or the other (every action by government must be obeyed) .. neither of those.. I agree that it is not a contract between equals, it is an action of law in government; like it or not it is the price of civilization. In the USA the basis of law has been worked out very well, in some cases. Of course there are abuses and no one is defending an abuse of the law. Humans are social and difficult. The answer lies in a system of review and an ability to change over time.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    A voluntary enquiry with a gag order? I mean, I suppose in principle there's no reason such a thing wouldn't be possible, but it feels like a bit of an edge case.
    - adeon 3y ago
      I'm trying to think to myself if I was running a project and had a canary, what would be the threshold to kill the canary on a voluntary enquiry. If it was CIA and they sent me: "Please give us all information on XYZ so that we can organize an assassination on them. This is voluntary and you don't have to give us that information. This is just pretty please." I think I would kill my canary even if the request is technically voluntary and I wasn't compelled to give out any information. But that was a joke scenario because I couldn't come up with more realistic scenarios. And then I guess if your threshold is too low, you'll kill your canary on something that might be a nothingburger.
      - sidewndr46 3y ago
        I don't think the CIA exactly sends you a note asking for data to be dropped off at their Google Drive. It is more likely you receive an offer to license data you have from a company that is relatively obscure with a financial incentive.
stusmall 3y ago
The idea behind a canary is while they can tell you to keep it confidential, they can't compel your speech to lie and say you've never cooperated. Adding a wink wink nod nod code word defeats the idea.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Isn't saying "You can't talk about this" compelling speech? Why can the courts say "You can't talk about this" legally, but can't say "You can't update your warrant canary"?
  - RIMR 3y ago
    Because, in the United States, you have a constitutional right not to be compelled to say something you don't want to, but you don't have the constitutional right to say whatever you want to, especially in the case of a gag order regarding an active investigation or trial. So if you go ahead and say "I haven't be served a warrant by X group" on your website, the government can stop you from saying the contrary, but they can't force you to lie about it, so you are free to remove the canary since it is no longer true. If the courts ever tried to retaliate against that, they'd run into a mountain of precedent that forbids compelled speech. They would have to argue that you are required to lie, rather than be allowed to retract a non-truth. That's not something the Constitution is going to allow.
    - IncreasePosts 3y ago
      So, it goes like this? If I have been served a warrant with a gag order: If someone asks me "Have you been served a warrant with a gag order?" - I'm allowed to say "No", and lie about it if I want to. I am not allowed to say "Yes", per the gag order. Now, if someone asks me: "have you been served a warrant with a gag order? Say no if the answer is no, but say nothing is the answer is yes". Now, I am allowed to say no, and allowed to say nothing, even though by saying nothing it directly contradicts the point of the gag order? Is it really the case that these gag orders are meaningless if someone just asks the question in the right manner? I can't really buy that. I suspect canary warrants only "work" because they have never been tested in court yet.

by fish44 3y ago

diggan 3y ago

You kind of lose plausible deniability with that granularity, I'd guess.

superkuh 3y ago

Technically even just removing a warrant canary immediately could put you at legal risk in the USA. The non-risky way is to update the canary $date every $timeperiod and then stop updating $date after an attack. That way nothing is changed to indicate but it still becomes obvious by lack of update after $timeperiod.

diggan 3y ago
Yeah, that kind of irked me with the commit. Currently (769b306) it says: > this commit removes a section of the footer as we have received a voluntary enquiry from a state authority that included a requirement for confidentiality Which... is just saying what happened? Point is to remove it without saying anything, as if you do, you'd break the "requirement for confidentiality" and put yourself at risk.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  Imagine complying with a gag order. That's one of the most blatant abuses of human rights.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    It is. But when you're on the receiving end and the federal agents bust down your door and point firearms at you you see things a bit differently in the moment.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
      Agreed, but that's all the more reason to be louder and more defiant.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        Not everyone wants to be a hero.
        zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        An hero
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    somehow it is hard to believe that this statement is made .. confidentiality and "gag orders" have ruled the business world for more than twenty years in the USA. Any executive of any public company (stocks) must demonstrate iron-clad compliance with these orders, every week of their employment. Asvmuch as anyone might agree with the aspirational poetry of this statement, it is literally ABCs of US dollar business that this is no joke. surely that is clear?
    - superkuh 3y ago
      This isn't business. This is the government using secret violent force to keep you from telling others you've been (legally) robbed. It does not involve a voluntary contract that one enters into willingly in the open. These are very different things. Surely that is clear?
      - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
        Exactly. This isn't a voluntary contract
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        One extreme (no demand on me is fair) or the other (every action by government must be obeyed) .. neither of those.. I agree that it is not a contract between equals, it is an action of law in government; like it or not it is the price of civilization. In the USA the basis of law has been worked out very well, in some cases. Of course there are abuses and no one is defending an abuse of the law. Humans are social and difficult. The answer lies in a system of review and an ability to change over time.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  A voluntary enquiry with a gag order? I mean, I suppose in principle there's no reason such a thing wouldn't be possible, but it feels like a bit of an edge case.
  - adeon 3y ago
    I'm trying to think to myself if I was running a project and had a canary, what would be the threshold to kill the canary on a voluntary enquiry. If it was CIA and they sent me: "Please give us all information on XYZ so that we can organize an assassination on them. This is voluntary and you don't have to give us that information. This is just pretty please." I think I would kill my canary even if the request is technically voluntary and I wasn't compelled to give out any information. But that was a joke scenario because I couldn't come up with more realistic scenarios. And then I guess if your threshold is too low, you'll kill your canary on something that might be a nothingburger.
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      I don't think the CIA exactly sends you a note asking for data to be dropped off at their Google Drive. It is more likely you receive an offer to license data you have from a company that is relatively obscure with a financial incentive.

stusmall 3y ago

The idea behind a canary is while they can tell you to keep it confidential, they can't compel your speech to lie and say you've never cooperated. Adding a wink wink nod nod code word defeats the idea.

IncreasePosts 3y ago
Isn't saying "You can't talk about this" compelling speech? Why can the courts say "You can't talk about this" legally, but can't say "You can't update your warrant canary"?
- RIMR 3y ago
  Because, in the United States, you have a constitutional right not to be compelled to say something you don't want to, but you don't have the constitutional right to say whatever you want to, especially in the case of a gag order regarding an active investigation or trial. So if you go ahead and say "I haven't be served a warrant by X group" on your website, the government can stop you from saying the contrary, but they can't force you to lie about it, so you are free to remove the canary since it is no longer true. If the courts ever tried to retaliate against that, they'd run into a mountain of precedent that forbids compelled speech. They would have to argue that you are required to lie, rather than be allowed to retract a non-truth. That's not something the Constitution is going to allow.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    So, it goes like this? If I have been served a warrant with a gag order: If someone asks me "Have you been served a warrant with a gag order?" - I'm allowed to say "No", and lie about it if I want to. I am not allowed to say "Yes", per the gag order. Now, if someone asks me: "have you been served a warrant with a gag order? Say no if the answer is no, but say nothing is the answer is yes". Now, I am allowed to say no, and allowed to say nothing, even though by saying nothing it directly contradicts the point of the gag order? Is it really the case that these gag orders are meaningless if someone just asks the question in the right manner? I can't really buy that. I suspect canary warrants only "work" because they have never been tested in court yet.