Live data from Hacker News

Silent Circle removes warrant canary

techcrunch.com

151–160 of 197 posts

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still clearly violates the spirit of the law. I guess in this case the government could argue that your attorney represents you; you're still effectively making a disclosure. I think it would be pretty much unheard of for a law firm to unilaterally announce a new client, so it's not like you could claim you didn't know it would happen, or it was out of your hands. I just don't think it makes sense to look for a lo…

Well, I guess at some level, I think NSLs violate the spirit of the law. Thus, it is worth examining the issue. I particularly like the above structure because it separates the hiring of the firm from the disclosure of the NSL to the firm. In fact, you might choose to never actually disclose the NSL to the hired firm! Since the firm doesn't necessarily know the reason they're being engaged, they're not making a discl…

> an organization like the EFF could make it a policy to publicly disclose when they've been hired or terminated by a client

I've worked at EFF for a long time and I don't believe EFF could adopt such a policy as a matter of prudence -- or legal ethics. I can tell you that there are many reasons that lawyers will regard the existence of conversations, client intake, consultations, and representation relationships as confidential. In fact, they see that as an important principle of legal ethics.

You can see some discussions of the confidentiality of the fact of legal representation as a matter of legal ethics at

https://www.google.com/#q=legal+ethics+"fact+of+representati...

Many times, EFF has to talk to clients and prospective clients about matters that, for a variety of reasons, it's not EFF's place to make public. Just as a start, it's important that people feel comfortable talking to our lawyers when they have questions about their rights in a particular situation, whether or not we end up going to court for that person, and knowing that the matter won't end up in the press or be revealed to other parties as a result of those conversations. Lawyers can also become subject to protective orders issued by courts specifically instructing them not to reveal information about a case.

Legal matters are sometimes embarrassing. Many people who've been sued, arrested, indicted, investigated, subpoenaed, or who anticipate a possibility that one of those things may happen, aren't necessarily keen to draw any further attention to the situation. Often, people involved in legal issues are quite anxious and distressed about what's happened to them. Sometimes people ask lawyers for help dealing with other people's improper disclosure of personal, private information, and naturally don't want their lawyers to draw more public attention to what's happened.

And people who are considering filing a lawsuit, giving information to a journalist, launching a new product, introducing or changing a corporate policy, or responding in some way to a government request, among other things, may have various acknowledged and alleged duties and responsibilities to other people. Announcing or implying that a particular legal case, issue, or situation exists or that a person is taking legal advice on a certain matter could have significant repercussions. It could lead to claims that someone has breached a duty of confidentiality, or it could damage personal or business relationships.

This isn't an exhaustive list of reasons that lawyers will keep confidential the fact of representation or the fact that a prospective client has sought legal advice (whether or not the lawyer ends up representing that client on an ongoing basis), but hopefully it helps to illustrate that this is something that lawyers take seriously as an ethical matter.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#152

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…

The more information your canary provides the more likely it is you'll get charged with breaching the NSL gag order. Current canaries don't bring down the ire of the various 3 letter agencies partially because they provide such tiny amount of information. Canaries down to the individual user would definitely be in violation of the gag order on an NSL and ever bring a lot of trouble if you did it for normal warrants!

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#153

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…

Traditional warrant canaries are issued regularly, just as you described it. It would be fantastic to get more granular, at the account-level. That would be a cool differentiator for these hardcore privacy/security-oriented companies.

No company is going to do that. Doing that would get them in trouble with normal warrants much less NSLs.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#154

I 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…

I've been bit for talking about a company I've worked for in the past, simply because someone took my personal opinions as company dogma. That said, I still continue to do it. I feel it really adds value and a human element to a conversation. People all to often forget that a company is a collection of individuals. Getting insight from one of those individuals, especially one who isn't PR or management is really refreshing.

Yea, there's a chance it will backfire. But I think that if everyone speaks openly it's much better for the community. I think one of the things you're also overlooking is the teacher effect - talking about something and teaching it provides a better insight and understanding of it to yourself. I've had great insights into things I've been working on because I discussed things surrounding them on reddit or HN. Community feedback is always valuable.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#155
post #37

I've been using Silent Circle's black phone 2 for almost a year now, and it is a rather terrible experience. They are ahead on app-specific permission denials, but they have hardly any sense of decent QA for their SilentOS. Previous updates had power regressions where the phone would be dead from a full charge within 8 hours. Took 3 months for them to fix that. Most recent update no longer has a functioning headphone…

>will forget all bluetooth paired devices on reboot OT but asking because I'm genuinely curious, if your goal is to have a "secure phone," why would you be pairing it to peripherals via Bluetooth? Or maybe am I misunderstanding "secure" in this case? The marketing speak on the the Blackphone 2 site seems more about "privacy" than security.

A smart watch for notifications. Having voice reply is useful.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#156

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?

They're vague enough that it really doesn't reveal any useful and live in a weird area where preventing them from working would be compelling speech which courts have been iffy about. So while they're not providing any real information about the NSL other than 'at some point in the last $TIME_PERIOD we received a NSL (or Bob who pushed for the canary forgot to put the new canary up)' they're not enough of a break for the FBI et al to bother.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#157
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional warrant canaries are issued regularly, just as you described it. It would be fantastic to get more granular, at the account-level. That would be a cool differentiator for these hardcore privacy/security-oriented companies.

No company is going to do that. Doing that would get them in trouble with normal warrants much less NSLs.

Why? You send one email per user per month: "We didn't get any warrants that cover your account." Nothing to it.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can the government compel my speech ? Can the government compel me to make false statements ? These are interesting questions, but I'm not at all sure the answer is not 'yes' to both of them, under the right circumstances. The Fifth Amendment would not seem to imply (there's no criminal proceeding, and not necessarily any risk of self-incrimination) and the First Amendment, while applicable, would not necessarily p…

Freedom of speech entails the freedom to speak only your mind. No one has a valid claim to compel your speech. What sufficiently dire circumstance can there be where a government would have the right to compel speech? I think the 13th amendment would come into play here as well.

> What sufficiently dire circumstance can there be where a government would have the right to compel speech?

"national security"

Post reply on HN