Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silent Circle removes warrant canary

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 197 posts

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#11

Post by jakobdabo »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7
jakobdabo wrote: post #4

Current warrant canaries are useless, it's a one time fuse. We need new, better, recurring (i.e. monthly) warrant canaries of different types (common canaries, individual canaries for each user). I want something like this everywhere: Jan 2016 - we haven't received any NSL Feb 2016 - we haven't received any NSL concerning your account Mar 2016 - we haven't received any NSL Apr 2016 - Jun 2016 - we haven't received an…

Why monthly and not daily? Or hourly?

I haven't put much thought into it, I guess it could be daily but hourly is overkill I think.

Actually, this is an interesting startup idea - warrant canary as a service, with an API.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#12

Post by greenokapi »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7
jakobdabo wrote: post #4

Current warrant canaries are useless, it's a one time fuse. We need new, better, recurring (i.e. monthly) warrant canaries of different types (common canaries, individual canaries for each user). I want something like this everywhere: Jan 2016 - we haven't received any NSL Feb 2016 - we haven't received any NSL concerning your account Mar 2016 - we haven't received any NSL Apr 2016 - Jun 2016 - we haven't received an…

Why monthly and not daily? Or hourly?

I wonder what the legal limits on the granularity are, probably up for a lot of interpretation in a court.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#13

Post by Retric »

jakobdabo wrote: post #4

Current warrant canaries are useless, it's a one time fuse. We need new, better, recurring (i.e. monthly) warrant canaries of different types (common canaries, individual canaries for each user). I want something like this everywhere: Jan 2016 - we haven't received any NSL Feb 2016 - we haven't received any NSL concerning your account Mar 2016 - we haven't received any NSL Apr 2016 - Jun 2016 - we haven't received an…

That's a great way to end up in prison. That said, civil disobedience has been used in the past to great effect.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#14

Post by ocdtrekkie »

joekrill wrote: post #8
swordswinger12 wrote: post #6

I have an honest, and probably dumb, question: how do warrant canaries actually avoid the prohibition against disclosing the receipt of a national security letter? Like, how is taking down a warrant canary legally dissimilar from just tweeting "we got an NSL"? If it semantically "means" the same thing, then why is one illegal and one legal?

I think the idea is that a warrant canary is regularly updated. And the fact that it is NOT updated would be an indicator that a warrant (or whatever) has been served. So it's the INACTION that triggers it, not an actual action (like tweeting).

I suppose for that you would need to say "We have not received a letter as of $date" and then stop updating that date. The current notion, adding a line you'd remove if you did receive one, may be still an action, if it's part of your default reporting.

But I don't believe warrant canaries "actually work" in practice.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#15

Post by kbenson »

jakobdabo wrote: post #11
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why monthly and not daily? Or hourly?

I haven't put much thought into it, I guess it could be daily but hourly is overkill I think. Actually, this is an interesting startup idea - warrant canary as a service, with an API.

I think the point is that at some level of granularity, it's an announcement that you are currently working with the authorities, which is expressly forbidden in the NSL.

There's some point at which a court will decide that you aren't complying, and stepping over that point is bad for your business. Since that point is very fuzzy, it's a dangerous thing to play around with.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#17

Post by freshhawk »

swordswinger12 wrote: post #6

I have an honest, and probably dumb, question: how do warrant canaries actually avoid the prohibition against disclosing the receipt of a national security letter? Like, how is taking down a warrant canary legally dissimilar from just tweeting "we got an NSL"? If it semantically "means" the same thing, then why is one illegal and one legal?

It's certainly a gray area, and a potentially dangerous one, so for legal protection if you take that warrant canary down then you would normally publicly state that it is absolutely not because you got an NSL, but for other reasons.

Like say, "business reasons".

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#18

Post by fucking_tragedy »

swordswinger12 wrote: post #6

I have an honest, and probably dumb, question: how do warrant canaries actually avoid the prohibition against disclosing the receipt of a national security letter? Like, how is taking down a warrant canary legally dissimilar from just tweeting "we got an NSL"? If it semantically "means" the same thing, then why is one illegal and one legal?

I'd like to see it tried in court, anyone with two braincells can see that it signals that a NSL was received, something that's prohibited by an NSL. The intent and signaling are there.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#19

Post by sigmar »

swordswinger12 wrote: post #6

I have an honest, and probably dumb, question: how do warrant canaries actually avoid the prohibition against disclosing the receipt of a national security letter? Like, how is taking down a warrant canary legally dissimilar from just tweeting "we got an NSL"? If it semantically "means" the same thing, then why is one illegal and one legal?

I was looking into the limits of compelled speech during the Apple v FBI situation earlier this year. IANAL. The courts have said that there are some definite limits on when the government can force speech. I'm not sure where a warrant canary falls, but you should look at Wooley v. Maynard if you want to learn more[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#20

Post by nickpsecurity »

kbenson wrote: post #15
jakobdabo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't put much thought into it, I guess it could be daily but hourly is overkill I think. Actually, this is an interesting startup idea - warrant canary as a service, with an API.

I think the point is that at some level of granularity, it's an announcement that you are currently working with the authorities, which is expressly forbidden in the NSL. There's some point at which a court will decide that you aren't complying, and stepping over that point is bad for your business. Since that point is very fuzzy, it's a dangerous thing to play around with.

Exactly. They could even order you to keep updating it. In the Lavabit case, the FBI asked and judge agreed to compel Levison's silence + lies if they got the key with reason being his business wouldnt suffer if customers were lied to about their privacy. That argument and a judge agreeing with it are worth remembering in discussions like these.
Post reply on HN