Sean Lynch wrote:

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Rayzer mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Here and there someone pokes their illogical head up and says "Warrant > canaries can't work" or "warrant canaries will get you introuble with > the law" or some variation on the theme. It boggles me fookin marnd, > it do. Perhaps this story can help massage some of those mental > tensions...

From what I've read the legal department at reddit isn't really sure whether it violated the law by killing it's canary.

Do we know for sure that Reddit deleted the canary because something happened that killed the canary, rather than because their legal department decided that the canary was possibly not legal in the first place? One would think they would simply say that's why they did it if that were the case, but the fact that they didn't say that is the only evidence I'm aware of that it's NOT because they decided it was illegal.

That's a good question and would make an interesting (albeit one-time-only) defense against being accused of tipping peeps by killing their canary. -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"