What action do I need to take in response? Please advise.
CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
21–30 of 145 posts
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#22Remember, Cloudflare CEO/CTO is active on HN. Their lack of reply (if that turns out to be the case) on this post would be telling.
Well, it’s been 4 minutes. I’m calling it!
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#23Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
Is there a precedent for compelling speech, even with something like an NSL?
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#24Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
Perhaps, but until there's a test case we're all just guessing. So far the Supreme Court has been fairly strict in following the compelled speech doctrine.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/30/co...
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#25Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
Compelled speech of any kind has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional. Also many companies have triggered their canaries, including Apple, Silent Circle, and Reddit. If Apple's legal department considers it valid I'm inclined to agree with them absent positive evidence of the contrary.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#26Is there a point to a company as large as Cloudflare even having a warrant canary? Half the internet goes through their servers. Of course the US government had or has hooks in them for something or other.
To legitimize the suspicion. That's always been the point.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#27Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
What's more likely, they removed it to signal they think canaries are a legal uncertainty or because of something else?
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#28Chrome should starting warning users if Cloudflare is used to protect a website, due to the risk of MITM.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#29Warrant canaries are largely believed to be unworkable. Ie federal lawyers are going to say "cute, but no, you cannot disclose that we warranted you in this or any other way."
Untested except obliquely but it is a compelling idea given the tests of the first that we've seen so far.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#30Chrome should starting warning users if Cloudflare is used to protect a website, due to the risk of MITM.
The biggest MITMer should complain about another service being an MITM? How much has Google now routed to go through themselves or be checked by them prior to serving your destination?
Bear in mind Google doesn't have a warrant canary because it is served literally hundreds or thousands of warrants per year, to the tune it's just called a transparency report to count them.