6 ms·

From the article: > Several experts described the mechanism as a “clever” workaround that could comply with the letter of the law but not its spirit. It's not

From the article: > Several experts described the mechanism as a “clever” workaround that could comply with the letter of the law but not its spirit. It's not clear to me how it could comply with the letter of the law, but evidently at least some legal experts think it can? That uncertainty is probably how it made it past the legal teams in the first place.

AstralStorm 1y ago
Warrant canary depends on agreed upon inaction, which shields it somewhat. You cannot exactly compel speech by a gag order. This, being an active process, if found out, is violating a gag order by direct action.
- votepaunchy 1y ago
  Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. It’s too clever but no more clever than what Israel is requiring here.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. No, they can simply not publish a warrant canary in the future, which will tip people off if they've been publishing it regularly in the past.
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      Right - the whole premise is that the government cannot compel speech (in the US). So if you publish something every week that says, “we’ve never been subpoenaed as of this week” and then receive a subpoena, the government can’t force you to lie and publish the same note afterwards. The lack of it being published is the canary here.
      - d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Whether you can be compelled to lie under these circumstances or not is not a resolved question of law. Although it seems fairly likely that compelling speech in this way is unconstitutional, if it has been tested in court, the proceedings are not public.
        lazide 1y ago
        Good thing no one is doing anything unconstitutional right now?
  - 8note 1y ago
    the canary notification method is a lack of updates, not a specific update. you update your canary to say that nothing has changed, at a known cadence. if you ever dont make the update, readers know that the canary has expired, and so you have been served a gag order warrant. changing or removing the canary in response to a warrant is illegal. not changing it is legal. for an equivalent cloudwatch setup, its checking the flag for "alarm when there's no points"
    - verdverm 1y ago
      I would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made
      - hrimfaxi 1y ago
        Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.
        joshuamorton 1y ago
        More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.
        Andrex 1y ago
        Ah, that was confusing to me. Thank you.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        yencabulator 11mo ago
        As far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company. Do you have a more custom example in mind?
YZF 1y ago
When those experts are not named one could wonder if they even exist. Why would a journalist not reveal the name of an expert who is consulting on a matter of law?
- cogman10 1y ago
  Not to get super conspiratorial, but I think this is almost certainly a weasel statement simply to avoid directly accusing Israel/google/amazon of breaking the law. I can't imagine any "legal expert" dumb enough to say you can violate a gag order if you use numbers instead of words.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    In all likelihood there's just language like "to the extent permitted by law", which The Guardian isn't telling us about. Even if they didn't write that explicitly, it's implied anyway - Israel knows any US court would void any provision requiring Google/Amazon to commit criminal acts (illegality doctrine). It's also not really possible for Israel to be break laws of foreign states, since it's not bound by them in the first place.
joe_the_user 1y ago
Ah, I think I get it. Violating the spirit of a law can be, often is, enough to get you convicted of a crime. Arguably more often than violating the letter of the law but not it's spirit. However, if a judge dodesn't want to find someone guilty, "not violating the letter of the law" can provide a fig leaf for the friendly judge.

AstralStorm 1y ago

Warrant canary depends on agreed upon inaction, which shields it somewhat. You cannot exactly compel speech by a gag order. This, being an active process, if found out, is violating a gag order by direct action.

votepaunchy 1y ago
Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. It’s too clever but no more clever than what Israel is requiring here.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. No, they can simply not publish a warrant canary in the future, which will tip people off if they've been publishing it regularly in the past.
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    Right - the whole premise is that the government cannot compel speech (in the US). So if you publish something every week that says, “we’ve never been subpoenaed as of this week” and then receive a subpoena, the government can’t force you to lie and publish the same note afterwards. The lack of it being published is the canary here.
    - d1sxeyes 1y ago
      Whether you can be compelled to lie under these circumstances or not is not a resolved question of law. Although it seems fairly likely that compelling speech in this way is unconstitutional, if it has been tested in court, the proceedings are not public.
      - lazide 1y ago
        Good thing no one is doing anything unconstitutional right now?
- 8note 1y ago
  the canary notification method is a lack of updates, not a specific update. you update your canary to say that nothing has changed, at a known cadence. if you ever dont make the update, readers know that the canary has expired, and so you have been served a gag order warrant. changing or removing the canary in response to a warrant is illegal. not changing it is legal. for an equivalent cloudwatch setup, its checking the flag for "alarm when there's no points"
  - verdverm 1y ago
    I would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made
    - hrimfaxi 1y ago
      Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.
      - joshuamorton 1y ago
        More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.
        Andrex 1y ago
        Ah, that was confusing to me. Thank you.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        yencabulator 11mo ago
        As far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company. Do you have a more custom example in mind?

YZF 1y ago

When those experts are not named one could wonder if they even exist. Why would a journalist not reveal the name of an expert who is consulting on a matter of law?

cogman10 1y ago
Not to get super conspiratorial, but I think this is almost certainly a weasel statement simply to avoid directly accusing Israel/google/amazon of breaking the law. I can't imagine any "legal expert" dumb enough to say you can violate a gag order if you use numbers instead of words.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  In all likelihood there's just language like "to the extent permitted by law", which The Guardian isn't telling us about. Even if they didn't write that explicitly, it's implied anyway - Israel knows any US court would void any provision requiring Google/Amazon to commit criminal acts (illegality doctrine). It's also not really possible for Israel to be break laws of foreign states, since it's not bound by them in the first place.

joe_the_user 1y ago

Ah, I think I get it. Violating the spirit of a law can be, often is, enough to get you convicted of a crime. Arguably more often than violating the letter of the law but not it's spirit. However, if a judge dodesn't want to find someone guilty, "not violating the letter of the law" can provide a fig leaf for the friendly judge.