5 ms·

This is great news. > we’re adding a clause that commits us (when possible) to first notify the user if we’re legally compelled by a litigant or government to

This is great news. > we’re adding a clause that commits us (when possible) to first notify the user if we’re legally compelled by a litigant or government to disclose a user’s private information The only additional thing I would like to see is an additional commitment to use all legal means to fight gag orders when they're present.

iandanforth 14y ago
Do you happen to know what these means are? For a national security letter my understanding is that the company can't tell anyone and for other lesser gag orders it might be impossible to even contact the EFF for assistance.
- cwp 14y ago
  In the case of a national security letter, you have to sue the U.S. government. It's rare, but possible. The Internet Archive did it, and won. http://archive.org/post/192021/fbi-gag-order-against-the-internet-archive-is-rescinded http://archive.org/post/192021/fbi-gag-order-against-the-int...
  - magicalist 14y ago
    that looks like they fought the request and won, but that the gag order was in place until the FBI actually withdrew the national security letter. Maybe it's what you meant, but it seems that there's no way to get the gag order removed without also getting the letter withdrawn.
    - cwp 14y ago
      I suppose you could sue for the right to break the gag order, while still supplying the information, but I'm not a legal expert.
- Titanous 14y ago
  There are two things that should be done to fight national security letters and gag orders: 1) Sue the US government to fight the order. 2) Use technical workarounds to inform your users without breaking the law. For example, rsync.net has a signed notice that they haven't been served a warrant: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
  - geofft 14y ago
    While clever in a hacker sense, I see no reason why the government can't compel rsync.net to continue updating the canary by just yelling "national security" loudly enough.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      How do you imagine that working? There's a law that allows them to ban disclosure under penalty of law. Is there some other law that allows them to compel people to lie?
      - geofft 14y ago
        There's no law or constitutional amendment _preventing_ the government from compelling people to lie, is there? In the contents of an already-secret national security letter sent to rsync.net, what prevents the government from saying "You may not tell anyone about this letter; this means you must continue updating the canary as if you hadn't received this letter"?
        wpietri 14y ago
        The rule of law and tenth amendment mean that the federal government can't just do whatever the president wants. They have to be authorized specifically by Congress, and event then there are limits. Congress, in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, has said that the feds can ask for records, and can additionally forbid people to say that they have been asked. It doesn't say they can compel people to lie. If the government orders them to do it, they can take the government to court, or they can just say no. The government then has to arrest them and try to convict them. Either way, a court would have to decide for sure. In this case, probably the Supreme Court, in that compelled speech has often been ruled as against the first amendment.
- rsingel 14y ago
  Due to an appeals court decision, NSL gag orders have been challengable since 2008 -- and it's very simple to do. But the thing is, companies rarely care to fight for their users. In 2010, the FBI admitted that the gag order has been challenged only 4 times, with a 50% success rate. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/ So yes, that would be a fine clause for companies to sign onto as well.

iandanforth 14y ago

Do you happen to know what these means are? For a national security letter my understanding is that the company can't tell anyone and for other lesser gag orders it might be impossible to even contact the EFF for assistance.

cwp 14y ago
In the case of a national security letter, you have to sue the U.S. government. It's rare, but possible. The Internet Archive did it, and won. http://archive.org/post/192021/fbi-gag-order-against-the-internet-archive-is-rescinded http://archive.org/post/192021/fbi-gag-order-against-the-int...
- magicalist 14y ago
  that looks like they fought the request and won, but that the gag order was in place until the FBI actually withdrew the national security letter. Maybe it's what you meant, but it seems that there's no way to get the gag order removed without also getting the letter withdrawn.
  - cwp 14y ago
    I suppose you could sue for the right to break the gag order, while still supplying the information, but I'm not a legal expert.
Titanous 14y ago
There are two things that should be done to fight national security letters and gag orders: 1) Sue the US government to fight the order. 2) Use technical workarounds to inform your users without breaking the law. For example, rsync.net has a signed notice that they haven't been served a warrant: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
- geofft 14y ago
  While clever in a hacker sense, I see no reason why the government can't compel rsync.net to continue updating the canary by just yelling "national security" loudly enough.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    How do you imagine that working? There's a law that allows them to ban disclosure under penalty of law. Is there some other law that allows them to compel people to lie?
    - geofft 14y ago
      There's no law or constitutional amendment _preventing_ the government from compelling people to lie, is there? In the contents of an already-secret national security letter sent to rsync.net, what prevents the government from saying "You may not tell anyone about this letter; this means you must continue updating the canary as if you hadn't received this letter"?
      - wpietri 14y ago
        The rule of law and tenth amendment mean that the federal government can't just do whatever the president wants. They have to be authorized specifically by Congress, and event then there are limits. Congress, in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, has said that the feds can ask for records, and can additionally forbid people to say that they have been asked. It doesn't say they can compel people to lie. If the government orders them to do it, they can take the government to court, or they can just say no. The government then has to arrest them and try to convict them. Either way, a court would have to decide for sure. In this case, probably the Supreme Court, in that compelled speech has often been ruled as against the first amendment.
rsingel 14y ago
Due to an appeals court decision, NSL gag orders have been challengable since 2008 -- and it's very simple to do. But the thing is, companies rarely care to fight for their users. In 2010, the FBI admitted that the gag order has been challenged only 4 times, with a 50% success rate. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/ So yes, that would be a fine clause for companies to sign onto as well.