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

Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

rsync.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#11

Post by jewel »

rsync wrote: post #8
ripperdoc wrote: post #3

Instead of the somewhat fuzzy method of dating via news, couldn't they combine this approach with that recommended by Errata Security to use bitcoin as a public ledger? http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2013/05/bitcoin-is-public-ledg...

Dating with news can be somewhat fuzzy, which is why we always take our news from the financial press, and attempt to datestamp with "material" information ... that is to say, news with a very high monetary value that the market is racing to receive. You could (conceivably) make up plausible future stories, but not things like quarterly results, lawsuit outcomes, etc.

Another good source of fixed-in-the-past yet unpredictable data is the closing price of a collection of stocks from the previous day. This would make verification easier to automate.

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#12

Post by dspillett »

Flenser wrote: post #5
xradionut wrote: post #4

I don't see the usefulness. You can sign a lie cryptographically just as well as a fact.

The government isn't allowed to force you to lie; they can force you to be silent. By updating this regularly it then becomes apparent when you have been forced into silence.

> The government isn't allowed to

Argument lost right there.

As a UK resident my government is not legally permitted to take part in, or knowingly allow to occur on its territory, anything like "extraordinary rendition". "isn't allowed" made no difference in that case (and many other examples can be referenced for other governments including those of America) so we can't really expect it to in this or any other future case either.

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#13

Post by pchander »

rsync wrote: post #10
pchander wrote: post #7

Why is there a 2006 date in the title?

This document was first published in 2006. We've been operating the warrant canary for just over 7 years now.

Wow, that's impressive. I'm surprised that date is not mentioned on the notice page (or on wikipedia).

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#14

Post by recursive »

ripperdoc wrote: post #3

Instead of the somewhat fuzzy method of dating via news, couldn't they combine this approach with that recommended by Errata Security to use bitcoin as a public ledger? http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2013/05/bitcoin-is-public-ledg...

It seems easier to verify news than a bitcoin transaction. I'd have no idea how to go about doing that.

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#16

Post by benjohnson »

Flenser wrote: post #5
xradionut wrote: post #4

I don't see the usefulness. You can sign a lie cryptographically just as well as a fact.

The government isn't allowed to force you to lie; they can force you to be silent. By updating this regularly it then becomes apparent when you have been forced into silence.

I know that the Government can force you to lie already - If you're American, go look at your milk container.

It will likely say something like "No rBST Artificial Hormones" and next to it it will say "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows."

That label is government mandated, and by law can't even be prefaced with something like "The following is Government mandated" or "We're forced to say."

This is a lie, because other parts of the government (not the FDA) have found material differences in the milk between untreated/treated cows.

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#17

Post by pchander »

jewel wrote: post #11
rsync wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dating with news can be somewhat fuzzy, which is why we always take our news from the financial press, and attempt to datestamp with "material" information ... that is to say, news with a very high monetary value that the market is racing to receive. You could (conceivably) make up plausible future stories, but not things like quarterly results, lawsuit outcomes, etc.

Another good source of fixed-in-the-past yet unpredictable data is the closing price of a collection of stocks from the previous day. This would make verification easier to automate.

Easy to automate might not be the best goal for a system like this :)

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#19

Post by rsync »

mperham wrote: post #15

Feds: "Continue to update the canary or you disclosed the secret warrant and we throw you in prison."

Yes, but note that this is updated not just on our website, but on the storage arrays themselves - some of which are in Zurich and Hong Kong.

So the above scenario is a possibility, but then imagine the followup:

Feds to Zurich Canton: Tell swiss national X to update the warrant canary or ...

We have it spread out geographically for a reason.

Re: Rsync.net Warrant Canary (2006)

#20

Post by leeoniya »

benjohnson wrote: post #16
Flenser wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government isn't allowed to force you to lie; they can force you to be silent. By updating this regularly it then becomes apparent when you have been forced into silence.

I know that the Government can force you to lie already - If you're American, go look at your milk container. It will likely say something like "No rBST Artificial Hormones" and next to it it will say "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows." That label is government mandated, and by law can't even be prefaced with something like "The following is Gov…

i always thought something like this should be on there:

"Product contains rBST - an artificial growth hormone banned from human consumption in the EU and other countries"

Post reply on HN