6 ms·

Wouldn't this just be considered premeditated intent to violate the NSL gag orders?

noonespecial 14y ago
I think it works like this. They are not permitted to tell you that they have been served a warrant, but they are always free to tell you that they haven't. If they should suddenly stop doing so, its up to you to draw your own conclusions as to why. That seems reasonable, even in the context of the madness of federal law. As the text file says however, its always possible that they are being coerced to lie and continue to say that they haven't when they have.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  They could physically destroy all copies of the private key they use if they are served a gag order, making it impossible for them to be coerced into maintaining the canary.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  Isn't it really about how this "law" is written. Stopping posting negative notifications is equivalent to "notifying the suspect". In the end they can wrap it up in a black box and say "we don't care what mechanism you used, we told you not to notify the suspect and you did, this a violation of this law, whether it was done via posting or refusing to continue post-ing something to a website it doesn't really matter".
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  I'm curious where the line is drawn. What if they had a different file for every user? What if one were to setup an independent site that reported the presence/absence of these files on 3rd party sites, but explicitly pointed out that the absence of the file, given the history of it's presence, meant there was a high probability that a NSL was served to a specific site, for a specific user...
  - sage_joch 14y ago
    I would be proud of their efforts to push back against an increasingly Orwellian government.
- bashinator 14y ago
  It occurs to me now, that the gag order might actually prevent them from testifying as to why they took down the notification.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Until they've been served the gag order they are under no obligation to follow it.

I think it works like this. They are not permitted to tell you that they have been served a warrant, but they are always free to tell you that they haven't. If they should suddenly stop doing so, its up to you to draw your own conclusions as to why. That seems reasonable, even in the context of the madness of federal law. As the text file says however, its always possible that they are being coerced to lie and continue to say that they haven't when they have.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
They could physically destroy all copies of the private key they use if they are served a gag order, making it impossible for them to be coerced into maintaining the canary.
rdtsc 14y ago
Isn't it really about how this "law" is written. Stopping posting negative notifications is equivalent to "notifying the suspect". In the end they can wrap it up in a black box and say "we don't care what mechanism you used, we told you not to notify the suspect and you did, this a violation of this law, whether it was done via posting or refusing to continue post-ing something to a website it doesn't really matter".
tlrobinson 14y ago
I'm curious where the line is drawn. What if they had a different file for every user? What if one were to setup an independent site that reported the presence/absence of these files on 3rd party sites, but explicitly pointed out that the absence of the file, given the history of it's presence, meant there was a high probability that a NSL was served to a specific site, for a specific user...
- sage_joch 14y ago
  I would be proud of their efforts to push back against an increasingly Orwellian government.
bashinator 14y ago
It occurs to me now, that the gag order might actually prevent them from testifying as to why they took down the notification.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Until they've been served the gag order they are under no obligation to follow it.