31–39 of 39 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to know what legal theory would make it a crime to post a warrant canary.
They would consider it a violation of the National Security Letter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would consider it a violation of the National Security Letter.
At the time of posting, no security letter has been received. So it cannot violate a non-existent letter. If you assume that the letter could preclude you from removing the warrant, you just need a living canary. You post a new canary every day that you haven't received one. If it goes stale, you must have received a letter. There is no way that they can compel you to lie to the public and post a new canary after the…
If you truly believe your argument, you wouldn't prosecute the boss even in the presence of this email. We all know anyone planning on using a warrant canary is intending to inform the public, so whether or not there's an email admitting it should be irrelevant if the action is legal. If you believe that the boss is not guilty, then you're consistent in your position.
Now, as a practical matter, you'd use an in-person meeting or telephone call or something. Or you'd at least use different wording. But the act itself would in principle still be illegal, even though there is no evidence to prosecute. And in that sense, a warrant canary could be a useful tool to allow one to get away with a crime that they consider unjust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ol…
Courts can generally compel you to do things, especially things you don't want to do (otherwise the compelling bit is redundant). Also, from other people's writing on the subject, I gather that courts aren't all that keen on sophistry and schemes, especially those specifically invented to anticipate and circumvent a specific order from the court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts can generally compel you to do things, especially things you don't want to do (otherwise the compelling bit is redundant). Also, from other people's writing on the subject, I gather that courts aren't all that keen on sophistry and schemes, especially those specifically invented to anticipate and circumvent a specific order from the court.
In the USA, courts generally can't compel you to speak. They do not have the power to force someone to utter or write words against their own free will. Forcing someone to continue publishing a statement saying that a warrant has not been received would be against understood Constitutional precedent.
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/whispersystems.org/issues/...
Bruce Schneier: Personally, I have never believed this trick would work. It relies on the fact that a prohibition against speaking doesn't prevent someone from not speaking. But courts generally aren't impressed by this sort of thing, and I can easily imagine a secret warrant that includes a prohibition against triggering the warrant canary. And for all I know, there are right now secret legal proceedings on this very issue.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/australia_out...
At the very least, the issue isn't clear-cut, and there most certainly isn't constitutional precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Courts can generally compel you to do things, especially things you don't want to do (otherwise the compelling bit is redundant). Also, from other people's writing on the subject, I gather that courts aren't all that keen on sophistry and schemes, especially those specifically invented to anticipate and circumvent a specific order from the court.
In the USA, courts generally can't compel you to speak. They do not have the power to force someone to utter or write words against their own free will. Forcing someone to continue publishing a statement saying that a warrant has not been received would be against understood Constitutional precedent.
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.