Warrant canaries appear to be usable by large US companies - Reddit in this case
From the deductive-reasoning department Arthur Dent '99 writes: Today, Reddit deleted wording in its
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... https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/01/0321257/reddit-deletes-surveillance-... "Reddit Deletes Surveillance 'Warrant Canary' In Transparency Report transparency report that would normally indicate that they had not received any "national security letters" or "other classified requests for user information." Such "national security... " fooking fook!
On 4/3/16, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Today, Reddit deleted wording in its transparency report that would normally indicate that they had not received any "national security letters" or "other classified requests for user information." Such "national security...
Some blogs say NSL's are unconstitutional violating: - the Fourth (are not warrants/subpoenas/orders reviewed signed by judge). - the First (being extralegal as such, there is no legal prior restraint). [As if "legal" PR is constitutional in itself.]
From tens of thousands of NSL's, only maybe three cases have followed that with courage to fight it. Probably none have conscientiously object, ie: ignoring and speaking first instead of asking permission.
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. -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/01/0321257/reddit-deletes-surveillance-...
From the deductive-reasoning department Arthur Dent '99 writes: Today, Reddit deleted wording in its
"Reddit Deletes Surveillance 'Warrant Canary' In Transparency Report transparency report that would normally indicate that they had not received any "national security letters" or "other classified requests for user information." Such "national security... "
fooking fook!
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Rayzer <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.
Sean Lynch wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Rayzer <Rayzer@riseup.net <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"
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
Rayzer -
Sean Lynch -
Zenaan Harkness