4 ms·
I really doubt this would play out well in court. As said before, judges take a dim view of legal "tricks" like this. They won't be sympathetic to you putting
by AnIrishDuck 13y ago
I really doubt this would play out well in court. As said before, judges take a dim view of legal "tricks" like this.
They won't be sympathetic to you putting yourself in a quandary where you're essentially requiring yourself to issue false statements. The order they issue will force you to update the canary, as refusing to would disclose the existence of the warrant.
- rsync 13y agoYes, but at the very least it elevates the process out of a simple rubber stamp court order. One way or another, we'd get our "day in court", even if you never hear about it, and that's worth something. We are more optimistic about how such things would play out, but even in that worst case scenario, there's some value in slowing things down and forcing that review.
- AnIrishDuck 13y agoI don't think we know enough about how the FISC works to jump to that conclusion. I'd say let us know how it works out, but...
- edwintorok 13y agoCould you revoke the public key used to sign these messages (i.e. publish revocation cert to keyservers) when you get a warrant served? That way they won't be able to force you to sign anything with that key anymore, all you can do is create a new key, but the timestamp on that key will make it obvious that something happened on that day.
- dllthomas 13y agoOr you could just publish a notification that you got a warrant. Yes, it's forbidden, but if the court has anything approaching smarts (and most do, actually) it's not any more forbidden than what you're suggesting and equally irrevocable.