The rsync.net Warrant Canary is now 15 years old

Post by anitil » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

rsync wrote: post #10

anitil wrote: post #8

I'm unfamiliar with US law, but I thought that with these secret warrants, there would be little distinction between positive action (like telling the press) and negative action (like not continuing a canary). As in, a judge would briefly think 'nice try' and send you to federal prison. Is this a concern for rsync.net? I assume they would have legal advice that supports your position, and know far more me.

Nobody knows the answer to this. "As in, a judge would briefly think 'nice try' and send you to federal prison. Is this a concern for rsync.net?" I'm not sure I parse your sentence correctly, but the only actor here is the US corporation named rsync.net. It is the entity that takes these actions (or lack thereof) and it would be the object of follow-up actions/proceedings/decisions - whatever they might be.

Post by marcenuc » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #6

dlight wrote: post #4

This is interesting. Question: this is a one-time-use warning system? Once a single warrant has been executed, this signal loses information, especially over time. Can it be restarted, but with a new start date, so that external observers can piece together when warrants are executed?

Well, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with serving - or responding - to search warrants or requests for evidence, etc. We will, in fact, comply with any form of proper legal service. We do not want customers using our service to commit criminal acts. So if a "normal" warrant is issued, we will simply add that to the canary that is published every Monday. If it does not hinder the legal proceedings we may even ide…