Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Silent Circle removes warrant canary
181–190 of 197 posts
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#182The canary is gone. They have received an NSL. If we don't assume this, then what the fuck was the point of the canary in the first place?
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
At least in the US, there are certainly circumstances where the government can compel speech, though in most cases they can't. There is a lot of case law on the subject. It's mostly in the commercial realm (think cigarette labels) but not entirely (think Jehovah's Witness school children who don't want to salute the flag). I'm not aware of a compelled speech case balancing national security interests against first am…
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure some people did. Probably the same number of people who started using them because the canaries were there. However, that doesn't mean users haven't changed their behaviour in response to warrant canaries. It's just not a lot of people, and it isn't clear we want it to be that way either. We don't want there to be a disincentive for companies creating them.
To continue this line of thinking, the case can be made that warrant canaries could be used to flush out a subset of users from a service, among whom are those that would be considered "interesting" by intelligence agencies.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the US, there are certainly circumstances where the government can compel speech, though in most cases they can't. There is a lot of case law on the subject. It's mostly in the commercial realm (think cigarette labels) but not entirely (think Jehovah's Witness school children who don't want to salute the flag). I'm not aware of a compelled speech case balancing national security interests against first am…
Pardon? No one, Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren or otherwise, can be legally compelled to say the pledge of allegiance, stand for the national anthem, or salute the flag. If you know of an instance of this occurring the ACLU would like to hear from you. Or have the rules on this changed when I wasn't looking?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/compell...
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#186I'm not sure what usefulness removing the warrant canary would be without receiving an NSL.. Are you suggesting that your company acts in bad practice regarding warrant canaries? You really shouldn't be playing PR for your company unless that's your job.
These kinds of comments are explicitly off limits on HN. You can't accuse people of shilling, or of "playing PR", or otherwise commenting in bad faith. If you believe someone is doing that and have evidence , you mail hn@ycombinator.com and let them handle it. What you don't do is chase people off threads with accusations about it. Don't take my word for it. I'm just another commenter. Use the search box at the botto…
This commenters voice could be false for all anyone knows and he could be lying to save the company's image. He's obviously biased in this case to do so if he does work at Silent Circle..
I'm appalled the "rigorous" HN would ignore the actual warrant canary and blindly trust an anonymous commenter who's account might be hacked or biased to lie about the state of affairs going on.
This guy is probably telling the truth but it serves no purpose other than to confuse the public and customers of Silent Circle to make empty statements about the on-goings within the company without an official statement from the company.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
These kinds of comments are explicitly off limits on HN. You can't accuse people of shilling, or of "playing PR", or otherwise commenting in bad faith. If you believe someone is doing that and have evidence , you mail hn@ycombinator.com and let them handle it. What you don't do is chase people off threads with accusations about it. Don't take my word for it. I'm just another commenter. Use the search box at the botto…
There was no "attack" here. I'm speaking for the confused people who are trying to figure out if the feds are watching them or not. This commenters voice could be false for all anyone knows and he could be lying to save the company's image. He's obviously biased in this case to do so if he does work at Silent Circle.. I'm appalled the "rigorous" HN would ignore the actual warrant canary and blindly trust an anonymous…
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? You send one email per user per month: "We didn't get any warrants that cover your account." Nothing to it.
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.
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because your family members might be oathbreakers Personal attacks (which attacking someone's family is) are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038978 and marked it off-topic.
Are personal defenses, like mentioning your own family similarly not allowed? Or do the rules just make that an irrefutable argument?
Re: Silent Circle removes warrant canary
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine a long hallway segmented with closed doors, where each door represents a decision made during a mission. As you continue walking down the hallway, opening doors, the morality of each decision becomes more difficult to square with your original frame of reference. Finally you encounter a door that you decide to leave shut. That is roughly how it works, self selection. The SF groups that, to put it charitably,…
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…
That is how you end up with a spectrum of SF groups, where some are tasked with difficult but clearly whitehat missions (the bulk of well known SF), illegal but debatably moral grayhat (some known SF but mostly units operating under cover designations), and finally the blackhats that rise to Hollywood level evil (basically Apocalypse Now with no paperwork). So for a late career SEAL the probabilities are pretty good for someone to land between lawful-good and neutral-good. Those are infinitely better odds than what you'd get with some random businessman.
I'd probably share your concern if the military was full of utilitarian statists, but strangely enough it is the direct opposite... well, except for flag officers - they can get a little kooky.