Live data from Hacker News

CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

cloudflare.com

51–60 of 145 posts

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#51

So what's stopping these people that claim to be so righteous by using canaries from lying to you? Anyhow the ISPs and internet backbones are all tapped as many whistle-blowers have already revealed.

Nothing is stopping them from lying.

Signaling that their infrastructure has been compromised is kind of a weird lie for them to make though...

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#52

So what's stopping these people that claim to be so righteous by using canaries from lying to you? Anyhow the ISPs and internet backbones are all tapped as many whistle-blowers have already revealed.

Sorry, I must have missed the claim of righteousness in the canary. Can you point me to it?

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#53
post #20
post #13

Warrant 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?

Compelled speech has lots of examples from warning labels, disclosures, truth in advertising, etc.

What you should be asking is their precedent for compelled false speech, which is a much more interesting and difficult to answer.

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#54
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want a similar warning on every site that the server might be compromised? Because I don't think that risk is smaller than the CloudFlare MITM risk.

I want a similar warning on any provider that is known to routinely MITM and send data unencrypted across the Internet. As far as I know that would only be sites hosted by Cloudflare and sites using certificates issued by the government of Kazakhstan. There's a difference between screwing up (and I wouldn't be against holding companies liable for that) and wilfully setting up a https:// URL that sends your requests u…

That's fair. It would be good for CloudFlare to force backend encryption.

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#55
It's weird to me people think warrants are still used.

No warrant is needed by any government agent to read your email that is over six months old and the major providers just give them a backdoor so as not to waste any time/money with requests.

Who is going to stop them from doing that with anything else? The supreme court? Good luck with that belief system. You think the NSA ever stopped just because they were discovered? Or did they just switch to "try to stop us".

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#56

So what's stopping these people that claim to be so righteous by using canaries from lying to you? Anyhow the ISPs and internet backbones are all tapped as many whistle-blowers have already revealed.

Nothing stops anyone from lying to you. In this case it would be considered fraud if the lie was discovered or leaked. Which is one of the rationales on why courts cannot compel a company to lie and post false warrant canaries, because it would incriminate them.

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#57
post #55

It's weird to me people think warrants are still used. No warrant is needed by any government agent to read your email that is over six months old and the major providers just give them a backdoor so as not to waste any time/money with requests. Who is going to stop them from doing that with anything else? The supreme court? Good luck with that belief system. You think the NSA ever stopped just because they were disc…

Their "canaries" don't make any reference to warrants, and two of them explicitly rule out providing a backdoor for governments ("Cloudflare has never installed any law enforcement software or equipment anywhere on our network" and "Cloudflare has never provided any law enforcement organization a feed of our customers' content transiting our network").

Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago

#60
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?

This forum requires a basic assumption of good faith for posters, especially when it comes to such a trivial mistake like having the wrong anchor section on a link to a short article. It was probably an artifact of their browser trying to be “helpful” when they were copying the link to the full article. Your aggression is unwarranted.

What aggression? Nothing they said was aggressive.
Post reply on HN