Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 145 posts

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

#61

Post by flangola7 »

stubish wrote: post #56
entriesfull wrote: post #50

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.

Courts absolutely can and do compel companies to maintain warrant canaries.

Fraud? Fraud against who? For what damages?

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

#62

Post by landemva »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #32
causality0 wrote: post #17

Is 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.

And, it's not like there are really alternatives. So what if they were served a warrant? What are they, and the people, going to do about it?

Until the people go on a general strike and stop working, the gears will continue to turn and squeeze the vice tighter.

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

#64

Post by greyface- »

flangola7 wrote: post #61
stubish wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Courts absolutely can and do compel companies to maintain warrant canaries. Fraud? Fraud against who? For what damages?

> Courts absolutely can and do compel companies to maintain warrant canaries.

Can you please cite one example of a court compelling the maintenance of a warrant canary?

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

#65

Post by philwelch »

devman0 wrote: post #53
93po wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just that, but compelled false advertising—false advertising itself already being a federal crime.

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

#66

Post by charcircuit »

adamgamble wrote: post #59
adamgamble wrote: post #58

I love cloudflare, but honestly I assumed they WERE the CIA/FBI not just compromised by them. It would be the perfect front company for the government.

Why wouldn’t they fund the worlds largest MITM attack?

Cloudflare is not a MitM attack. By that same logic AWS would be an even bigger MitM attack.

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

#67

Post by JHorse »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #32
causality0 wrote: post #17

Is 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.

And, it's not like there are really alternatives. So what if they were served a warrant? What are they, and the people, going to do about it?

[dead]

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

#68

Post by barrysteve »

ck2 wrote: 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…

So.. what? Endless despair?

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

#69

Post by adamgamble »

charcircuit wrote: post #66
adamgamble wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn’t they fund the worlds largest MITM attack?

Cloudflare is not a MitM attack. By that same logic AWS would be an even bigger MitM attack.

What am I missing? They literally decrypt all the traffic to your website, do some stuff, then re-encrypt and send it on to your server.

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

#70

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

callalex wrote: post #43
zaksoup wrote: 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.

No aggression I can see, remember the good faith assumption!
Post reply on HN