Warrant canaries appear to be usable by large US companies - Reddit in this case

[Rayzer]

Sean Lynch wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Rayzer <Rayzer at riseup.net
> <mailto:Rayzer at 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"


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160404/94a0200c/attachment-0003.sig>