Silent Circle removes warrant canary • Hacker News Board

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#191

Post by rtkwe » Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 6:11 PM UTC

hendersoon wrote: post #188

rtkwe wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that would get the company in trouble even a normal warrant to say nothing of the gag order on an NSL. It's too specific and tips off the exact people being investigated. The lawsuit the company would be hit with would be huge, expensive and a pretty straight forward loss.

I don't see why. It's the exact same principle as standard warrant canaries.

It's the same rough idea except it goes from "we received at least one letter once about some user(s) on this site" to "we received a letter about YOU," that's a huge difference.

Canaries aren't challenged currently partially because they give out so little information that it's really not worth the governments time to go after people. What the NSL gag really aims to prevent is to keep the people targeted by the NSLs from knowing that they're under investigation. If a company started doing canaries that applied down to a single person they'd be sued the first time they stopped sending one after getting a letter.

Also I'm not entirely sure that even if a judge found that an NSL can't compel you to send a zombie canary that it follows that the company can't be fined or sanctioned for breaking the gag order.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#192

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

woodman wrote: post #190

nickpsecurity wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting points. Your view on the evaluation process matches my observations of them and their organizations. The only problem is, with that background, what happens to average one when Uncle Sam needs them to kick open another door to protect America or other SEALs? And promises that backdoor will only be used by our spooks with no damage to American or other users? I know that some would say no. I don't know how…

The system is designed in such a way that such a scenario doesn't happen, because once you indicate an unwillingness to open that door - you aren't expected to ever open that door (and you're unlikely to be offered the opportunity). You will just continue to operate at the level of your last door opening. This isn't unique to SF, you see this sort of continuous evaluation occur in the corporate world as well. That is…

"This isn't unique to SF, you see this sort of continuous evaluation occur in the corporate world as well."

You're implying the Old Boy network effect doesn't exist. Whereas you discuss it in other posts. This is a concern to me even if I accept the arguments about what their views are likely to be on average walking out of the SF community. When the effect applies, they're often working for each other or previous groups as much as the current one.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#193

Post by 794CD01 » Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #189

794CD01 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are personal defenses, like mentioning your own family similarly not allowed? Or do the rules just make that an irrefutable argument?

Not sure I understand your question, but sharing personal experience (including family experience) in good faith is more than fine.

That's okay. It was primarily a rhetorical question anyway.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#194

Post by woodman » Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #192

woodman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is designed in such a way that such a scenario doesn't happen, because once you indicate an unwillingness to open that door - you aren't expected to ever open that door (and you're unlikely to be offered the opportunity). You will just continue to operate at the level of your last door opening. This isn't unique to SF, you see this sort of continuous evaluation occur in the corporate world as well. That is…

"This isn't unique to SF, you see this sort of continuous evaluation occur in the corporate world as well." You're implying the Old Boy network effect doesn't exist. Whereas you discuss it in other posts. This is a concern to me even if I accept the arguments about what their views are likely to be on average walking out of the SF community. When the effect applies, they're often working for each other or previous gr…

> You're implying the Old Boy network effect doesn't exist.

Kind of, but not really. One is monolithic and the other is stratified in such a way that loyalty does not transfer to the superstructure. Consider the relationship between the US Navy and Red Cell - a perfect, and largely public, example of the compartmentalization and transferability of loyalty.

> ...or previous groups as much as the current one.

And since the order of potential group membership and level of potential shadiness is so well defined - that is a pro rather than con when the last group to which one was a member can be determined.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#195

Post by Retra » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 12:38 AM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #132

Retra wrote: post #128

Earlier 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.

If I already started a warrant canary, the only way you can compel that to not work is to compel me to continue posting. But you can only do that after right now, so you cannot possibly redact the canary itself. And you could only compel me to keep posting if you'd already served a warrant.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#196

Post by hendersoon » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 1:31 AM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #191

hendersoon wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why. It's the exact same principle as standard warrant canaries.

It's the same rough idea except it goes from "we received at least one letter once about some user(s) on this site" to "we received a letter about YOU," that's a huge difference. Canaries aren't challenged currently partially because they give out so little information that it's really not worth the governments time to go after people. What the NSL gag really aims to prevent is to keep the people targeted by the NSLs…

It's not "we received a letter about you". If they get a NSL, then they _don't_ post the canary. That's a key difference, between action and inaction, and it's what the whole thing rests on.

Not that it's been tested in (non-secret) court.

Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary

#197

Post by rtkwe » Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

hendersoon wrote: post #196

rtkwe wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same rough idea except it goes from "we received at least one letter once about some user(s) on this site" to "we received a letter about YOU," that's a huge difference. Canaries aren't challenged currently partially because they give out so little information that it's really not worth the governments time to go after people. What the NSL gag really aims to prevent is to keep the people targeted by the NSLs…

It's not "we received a letter about you". If they get a NSL, then they _don't_ post the canary. That's a key difference, between action and inaction, and it's what the whole thing rests on. Not that it's been tested in (non-secret) court.

I'm saying that the reason warrant canaries haven't gotten companies in trouble yet is because they're so vague as to be practically useless and that revealing to a person that they were the target of an NSL, through either action or inaction, would probably be over the line legally.

At the very least it'd be a massively expensive test case and the companies that have the money to pay for that have too much to lose on a case that isn't solid. It'll come down to the very technical legal question of action vs inaction that would probably wind up in the supreme court.