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

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#81

Post by sbalea »

dsp1234 wrote: post #75
rsync wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can you comment on if you believe these to be actually effective? I don't see how when the USG says that you cannot divulge that you've received any type of NSL, they can easily say you must continue to act like you have in the past." The entire basis of the warrant canary is that it's not simply asking me to stop doing something , but rather, a judge would have to order me to make false public statements. That's a…

Can the government compel me to make false statements ? In what scenario would the government need to compel you to make false statements? The law is already that if you receive a NSL, then you are not allowed to divulge that you've received one. If you do, then you may be prosecuted for breaking the law. In the scenario involving warrant canaries, the only difference between just outright saying you've received an N…

The way I understand this, the canary will not be removed, it will just stop being updated. All it says is that, as of the date of the canary, no NSLs have been served. If you know the organization posts a new one monthly and you see it skipped a month, well you draw your own conclusions.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#82

Post by 794CD01 »

rsync wrote: post #67
res0nat0r wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you comment on if you believe these to be actually effective? I don't see how when the USG says that you cannot divulge that you've received any type of NSL, they can easily say you must continue to act like you have in the past. I just don't see a court or a judge upholding a "cute" or "technical" workaround for something like this. Haven't there been rulings in the past where these aren't valid, ie just like th…

"Can you comment on if you believe these to be actually effective? I don't see how when the USG says that you cannot divulge that you've received any type of NSL, they can easily say you must continue to act like you have in the past." The entire basis of the warrant canary is that it's not simply asking me to stop doing something , but rather, a judge would have to order me to make false public statements. That's a…

You have put yourself in a situation where you need to make false statements in order to comply with the law. If you create a deathtrap where you control a deadmans switch that prevents it from killing me, that doesn't absolve you of murder simply because the cause of my death is inaction rather than action.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#83

Post by knowaveragejoe »

ghurtado wrote: post #61
Sir_Substance wrote: post #30

>I think American authorities can tell the difference between what they do and the Stasi. Of course they can, they're protecting their nations chosen way of life, while the Stasi were oppressing citizens who dared resist the status quo. The difference is clear.

> The difference is clear. That's either some fine quality sarcasm, or I'm going to need some help understanding the difference between the two. Didn't you just describe the same job from two different points of view (opressor vs opressed)?

Yes, it's called participating in a cirlejerk.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#84

Post by 794CD01 »

zekevermillion wrote: post #5

I'm not sure warrant canaries are particularly useful anymore. Yes, it's nice to know when a company has received a secret order or request for cooperation. However, any company that stores user information is going to receive such an order or request at some point, it's practically inevitable. Furthermore, one can never be assured that a canary is entirely reliable as a signal -- just look at the other comments with…

The wording of your statement incorrectly implies that warrant canaries were ever useful.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#85

Post by 794CD01 »

Members of the US military swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, including domestic ones. Just because your family members might be oathbreakers doesn't mean everyone in the military is.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#86

Post by knowaveragejoe »

cbsmith wrote: post #79
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #9

Warrant canaries have outlived their usefulness. Did anyone stop using Reddit when they removed theirs? Or Apple products, when they removed theirs?

I'm sure some people did. Probably the same number of people who started using them because the canaries were there. However, that doesn't mean users haven't changed their behaviour in response to warrant canaries. It's just not a lot of people, and it isn't clear we want it to be that way either. We don't want there to be a disincentive for companies creating them.

To continue this line of thinking, the case can be made that warrant canaries could be used to flush out a subset of users from a service, among whom are those that would be considered "interesting" by intelligence agencies.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#87

Post by Sir_Substance »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #83
ghurtado wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference is clear. That's either some fine quality sarcasm, or I'm going to need some help understanding the difference between the two. Didn't you just describe the same job from two different points of view (opressor vs opressed)?

Yes, it's called participating in a cirlejerk.

I can't tell which side you think I'm on :D

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#89

Post by solotronics »

matthewmarkus wrote: post #40
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…

I've always wondered if there is a side-channel that could be used instead of a warrant canary. More specifically, my understanding is that witnesses have Miranda Rights. Therefore, couldn't a company promulgate a process whereby they'll publicly solicit bids for legal counsel should they receive a NSL? If they start asking for bids, you can assume they've received a NSL. If not, then no NSL has been received. Any la…

What if you told everyone that you would probably retain a specific lawyer if you were served a warrant such as this. If your company retains that specific council and makes a post on your website I don't see how that can be misconstrued as a warrant canary.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#90

Post by burkaman »

matthewmarkus wrote: post #80
burkaman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you get to keep a right you just made up for yourself? If your random corporate process clashes with the law, the law wins. You still retain your constitutional right to counsel, you just need to contact prospective lawyers through private channels, even if that procedure conflicts with the bylaws of your board of directors. There is no clever loophole here, it's a very simple order. The law says "no [recip…

I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning; however, it looks like one's right to counsel is restricted if one is not charged with a crime: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/352/330/ (1957) Further, it seems that Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/ (1966) I do think that if one is charged or restrained that the process might work. Of cour…

Why would it work? You think if you told the judge "nothing I can do, it says right here in my employee handbook that I'm not allowed to seek legal counsel without a public bidding period" they would say "wow, you really outsmarted us this time, nice job"? If part of your job involves breaking the law, then the law compels you to not do your job.

It seems like you're trying to hack in a domain that can't really be hacked, because it's not even very well defined. The spirit of the law is clear, I can't see any reason a judge would come down on your side of this. Prohibiting a bidding process does not restrict any of your rights.

Post reply on HN