Silent Circle removes warrant canary
141–150 of 197 posts
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like me telling you that you can't make this post that you've already made. I can tell you not to make any further posts, but this one already exists.
No, it's like telling me that I need to continue making posts, or I will be fined. This may not be pleasant, but it's certainly something that the government can do. It's pretty well established that they're legally allowed to prevent me from telling people that I am in a certain state. It's not a stretch that prearranged signals fall under that.
By compelling you to lie? When and where was that "pretty well established"?
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#143I work for silent circle, as a backend developer. I speak for myself, and not the company. As far as I know (and, sure, I may not know, although if someone wanted something from the server I'm one of a few guys that could get it), we haven't received any letters. What makes me even more confident, though, is the fact that there really isn't much data to give. All we have is some ciphertexts for attachments, and messa…
Perhaps you were just ordered to start... and plugging in that little black box from the G-Men somehow, umm, killed the canary process. Somehow.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's like telling me that I need to continue making posts, or I will be fined. This may not be pleasant, but it's certainly something that the government can do. It's pretty well established that they're legally allowed to prevent me from telling people that I am in a certain state. It's not a stretch that prearranged signals fall under that.
> It's pretty well established that they're legally allowed to prevent me from conveying a certain state -- ie, that I have received an NSL. By compelling you to lie? When and where was that "pretty well established"?
As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been tested in court. However, given that courts have been pretty silent on the idea of secret laws and compulsory silences, if it did get there, I'd be shocked that courts didn't rule this way.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, but want to chime in to say I'm always happy when people directly connected to stories on HN take the time to shed what light they can on them. I'm kind of repelled by the instinct we have to tear those people down.
I'm kind of repelled by the instinct we have to tear those people down. Sorry you took it that way. Myself, I'd hate to see our desire for gossip overrule wishing to avoid folks having a difficult conversation with their manager. Maybe not in this case, but if enough people from various companies start posting out of turn on public forums when they as individuals don't know the whole story, someone's going to wake up…
Perhaps more people should have difficult conversations with their managers. Or perhaps his management supports, or at least actively doesn't care about, these sorts of posts? We have no idea.
Surely as an adult, he can decide that for himself, without being subject to sermonizy advice meant to take care of his own interests for him because he's deemed incapable of doing it himself.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#146I work for silent circle, as a backend developer. I speak for myself, and not the company. As far as I know (and, sure, I may not know, although if someone wanted something from the server I'm one of a few guys that could get it), we haven't received any letters. What makes me even more confident, though, is the fact that there really isn't much data to give. All we have is some ciphertexts for attachments, and messa…
I speak for myself, and not the company. As soon as you said "I work for that company", you speak for them, whether you like it or not and no amount of disclaiming changes that in the mind of the reader. Additionally, you went on to explain things that only someone that works there would know, so you are explicitly speaking for the company. I'd normally recommend that an employee delete such a post, perhaps explainin…
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#147I think people cling to the fiction because the alternative is too awful for them to bear. We've gone from denial to a bargaining phase, where we come up with little technicalities that might preserve our beliefs. Next will be anger, and then a polarization of how people act on their eventual acceptance.
As someone who has seriously evaluated buying a blackphone and support SC in principle, I couldn't bring myself to do it. It's not just them, they're just the most viable and so they catch all the criticism from nerds like me. I wanted a physical lens cap, hardware switches for all microphones and all radios, a removable microSD key module, an option to use the 2nd sim slot as a custom javacard crypto module, a hypervisor for android versions (which I think they have something like) a key management spec published in BAN logic, and the moon. The moon would do.
Basically, I wanted the AR-15 platform of smart phones, where the baseband processor is just the lower receiver. Said nobody who wanted to make money ever.
i am not against them, but I do think SC, wickr, whatsapp, firechat, and privacy companies like them need a narrative pivot. The tech will be valuable, but real market fit depends on popular acceptance of a state level threat model - or at least a desire to be seen as against it.
Today, it's the electronic equivalent to wearing a motorcycle club patch. Yeah, lots of military and law enforcement and regular folks are in motorcycle clubs, but it's a statement. Privacy apps today are a shibboleth with negative skewed optionality.
One of these companies could become the harley davidson of privacy platforms, (whatsapp is close) but that's the upside. An aging rebel brand torn between loyalty and relevance.
The user base for these niche, qualitative difference apps is not unlike the story of indie record labels back in the 80s. Outsider identities, alternative social networks with their own shibboleths. If anyone can figure out who ever got rich off goth, the business model for privacy tech might be within reach. For now, privacy is just an effects pedal and some shitty makeup for bland suburban consumer apps.
The warrant canary issue is a romantic misunderstanding of law, markets, and politics, and the issue is the least important thing about a company like Silent Circle.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#148The naivety of warrant canaries shows a kind of desperate denial, especially in the wake of Snowden. Warrant canaries are more about preserving the myth of a principled legal system than a real rebellion against deep state surveillance. I think people cling to the fiction because the alternative is too awful for them to bear. We've gone from denial to a bargaining phase, where we come up with little technicalities th…
Misunderstanding of...? If it disappears it's either 'a business decision and/or NSL or just a NSL. What's the misunderstanding? There are some people who are more relaxed about Trump proclaiming that he "hates protestors'. I am not. When someone says they hate protestors, I set warrant canaries on all my websites. This is a scary time and warrant canaries are literally the least we can do. Furthermore when someone removes a warrant canary then explains it as "a business decision" whatever the actual reason, they have told you the type of company they are; a company that removes warrant canaries.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
The founder and original CEO was a SEAL.
Didn't know that. Icing on the cake of my claim. Not even me having anything against SEAL's: two in my family with one decorated. I just have to assume their loyalty will lead them to side with military or intelligence over Constitutional principles. It would be different if code was all open, jurisdiction + servers non-US, and review by mutually-suspicious parties. Then I could focus on product more than the subvers…
That is roughly how it works, self selection. The SF groups that, to put it charitably, operate under legally ambiguous circumstances are people who know each other really well, and they only invite in those who are a known quantity. There isn't any kind of laboratory-prisoner-execution/choose-the-red-pill sort of test, the evaluation occurs continuously in the daily performance of one's duties.
SEAL teams are, relatively speaking, high profile SF - and therefor much less likely to be tasked with strictly illegal and morally objectionable missions. I have a lot more trust in someone who has SEAL team affiliation towards the end of their military service. They've walked the hall and stopped opening doors pretty early on, so they're a well measured quantity.
Also, it is my experience that veterans with combat action ribbons are far less likely to mindlessly appeal to state authority or be swayed by utilitarian justifications. Of the dozen guys I've kept in touch with, most are libertarians and a few are anarchists. I guess seeing the ugliest side of the state will flip a switch :)
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#150I'm not sure what usefulness removing the warrant canary would be without receiving an NSL.. Are you suggesting that your company acts in bad practice regarding warrant canaries? You really shouldn't be playing PR for your company unless that's your job.
These kinds of comments are explicitly off limits on HN. You can't accuse people of shilling, or of "playing PR", or otherwise commenting in bad faith. If you believe someone is doing that and have evidence , you mail hn@ycombinator.com and let them handle it. What you don't do is chase people off threads with accusations about it. Don't take my word for it. I'm just another commenter. Use the search box at the botto…