4 ms·
Instead of not communicating it. What if you block people from viewing something else as a consequence of receiving a request. Eg there is a public mailbox fol
by click170 12y ago
Instead of not communicating it. What if you block people from viewing something else as a consequence of receiving a request.
Eg there is a public mailbox folder that can be checked by anyone online and there is an email filter that directs all mail with keywords typically found in requests to that folder. When a request is received you would of course be forced to block access to the mailbox as soon as you were aware of the takedown, but losing the ability to check that the mailbox is clean is the warrant canary. There would always be a small window between when the email arrived and was visible and when the company saw the request and blocked access.
- danielweber 12y agoOkay, I'm getting this pattern by people who want to make warrant canaries work: 1. You receive warrant you aren't allowed to tell friend about. 2. ??? 3. Friend now knows you got a warrant! How clever! It doesn't matter what stuff you cram into #2. I'm sure you want to talk to the court at great length about how #2 means you didn't communicate. Courts have dealt with this nonsense for a long time. It's called "distinction without a difference."
- jsprogrammer 12y agoWhat if you stuff the first amendment to the US constitution in there? It's only one sentence, and very blunt: >Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
- s_kilk 12y agoIt should be evident by now that that one sentence is effectively meaningless in the US.
- jsprogrammer 12y agoHas it been tested in court in relation to NSLs?