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

Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

transparency.airbnb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#21

Post by nickpsecurity »

ikeboy wrote: post #17
enave wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised the government hasn't just sent a banal request to everyone along the lines of, "you are required to disclose every known space alien who uses your service and you are prohibited from disclosing this order." Every service then has to kill its canary.

There would be no legal basis for such a prohibition, as there's no plausible national security endangerment were the request to be revealed.

Well, less ignore mass panic and such. It's always been US government policy not to talk about these things. Canadian and UK, too, apparently. So, it being classified mighg make it a no go.

However, I found this Quora answer to give pretty good justification on national security grounds for military scenarios:

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-government-afraid-of-reveal...

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#22

Post by Zigurd »

williamscales wrote: post #16
enave wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised the government hasn't just sent a banal request to everyone along the lines of, "you are required to disclose every known space alien who uses your service and you are prohibited from disclosing this order." Every service then has to kill its canary.

Probably because a warrant canary would never hold up in court and they just don't care.

No cases where a warrant canary was removed to signal the possible receipt of an NSL have been prosecuted. Either all those warrant canaries were removed for other reasons, or prior restraint is still unconstitutional enough to keep prosecutors at bay.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#23

Post by nitrogen »

DINKDINK wrote: post #13

In the report, they call the ratio of "Requests For Which At Least Some User Data Was Disclosed" to the "Total Requests" the "Compliance Rate". In this report it's 43.6% which implies that Airbnb is "out of compliance" with 56.4% of requests. I wouldn't call that ratio the compliance rate because it a rejected request may be very justified from the standpoint of the business / customers privacy. "Disclosure ratio" se…

If you interpret "compliance" as the noun form of the verb "to comply", it makes more sense. Compliant behavior, that is, "compliance", is not always positive.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#24

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

nstj wrote: post #12
tmcpro wrote: post #4

> (in the case of certain types of national security-related requests in the United States like national security letters) from publicly acknowledging receiving it, such as in a transparency report like this one. (To date, we have not received a national security letter or other similar request that would limit our ability to disclose it here) They have included a warrant canary

Just discovered that the original warrant canary (2005) was purportedly created by a librarian, being a sign in her library reading: “The FBI has not been here (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).”[0] [0]: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech525...

Why does everyone make such a huge deal about a warrant canary when LE is clearly aware of them and a true gag order would obviously preclude you from removing any such canaries?

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#25

Post by gizmo686 »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #24
nstj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just discovered that the original warrant canary (2005) was purportedly created by a librarian, being a sign in her library reading: “The FBI has not been here (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).”[0] [0]: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech525...

Why does everyone make such a huge deal about a warrant canary when LE is clearly aware of them and a true gag order would obviously preclude you from removing any such canaries?

Because it is not obvious that a gag order would preclude one from removing a warrent canarie.

There has been no test cases on the subject, and there are few instances of the court upholding compelled speech. Further, the precedents that we do have for compelled speech have been based on the compelled speach being truthful (as well as a legitimate government interest in compelling the speach).

This means that, irrespective of the law of the gag orders, one could make a very strong consitutional arguement for being allowed to remove the canary, and would have strong precedent.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#26

Post by hackuser »

Zigurd wrote: post #22
williamscales wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because a warrant canary would never hold up in court and they just don't care.

No cases where a warrant canary was removed to signal the possible receipt of an NSL have been prosecuted. Either all those warrant canaries were removed for other reasons, or prior restraint is still unconstitutional enough to keep prosecutors at bay.

... or the organizations did not remove the warrant canaries because their attorneys told them that they would go to jail.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#27

Post by dimino »

tmcpro wrote: post #4

> (in the case of certain types of national security-related requests in the United States like national security letters) from publicly acknowledging receiving it, such as in a transparency report like this one. (To date, we have not received a national security letter or other similar request that would limit our ability to disclose it here) They have included a warrant canary

Warrant canaries make zero sense, the court would simply require you keep your warrant canary as part of its order.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#28

Post by philsnow »

dimino wrote: post #27
tmcpro wrote: post #4

> (in the case of certain types of national security-related requests in the United States like national security letters) from publicly acknowledging receiving it, such as in a transparency report like this one. (To date, we have not received a national security letter or other similar request that would limit our ability to disclose it here) They have included a warrant canary

Warrant canaries make zero sense, the court would simply require you keep your warrant canary as part of its order.

From what I understand, the way canaries are supposed to work is, you keep publishing a document every day / week / whatever, that includes a phrase like "Today is 2016-09-02, and we have not received any national security letters or gag orders".

When you receive an NSL, you either publish a document including the phrase "Today is 2016-09-03." or else simply stop publishing that document and leave the one with the old date up, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Under this scheme, the court would have to compel speech on your part (force you to publish a new canary), but there's some precedent that might indicate that you can tell them to stuff it.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#29

Post by Zigurd »

hackuser wrote: post #26
Zigurd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No cases where a warrant canary was removed to signal the possible receipt of an NSL have been prosecuted. Either all those warrant canaries were removed for other reasons, or prior restraint is still unconstitutional enough to keep prosecutors at bay.

... or the organizations did not remove the warrant canaries because their attorneys told them that they would go to jail.

I'd like to know what legal theory would make it a crime to post a warrant canary.

Re: Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

#30

Post by shalmanese »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #24
nstj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just discovered that the original warrant canary (2005) was purportedly created by a librarian, being a sign in her library reading: “The FBI has not been here (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).”[0] [0]: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech525...

Why does everyone make such a huge deal about a warrant canary when LE is clearly aware of them and a true gag order would obviously preclude you from removing any such canaries?

Given that warrant canaries have already tripped, clearly it's not SOP for law enforcement to force warrant canaries to stay.
Post reply on HN