5 ms·
That doesn’t seem functionally different than removing the canary.
by djaykay 2y ago
That doesn’t seem functionally different than removing the canary.
- supermatt 2y agoRemoving the canary requires action. Not resigning a canary requires inaction.
- kspacewalk2 2y agoI strongly doubt a judge will care to distinguish the two.
- 123yawaworht456 2y agothat would be compelled speech
- greyface- 2y agoDoubt all you want. Can you point to case law?
- hackable_sand 2y ago[dead]
- canoebuilder 2y agoWhy did you do this thing 2 weeks ago? vs Why didn’t you do this thing 2 weeks ago that you were under no legal obligation to do? Seems like a significant and valid distinction even if what they communicate to the intended audience is largely the same. “Largely the same” because in the second case it would be possible that forgetting, or some other obstacle to resigning occurred.
- ynniv 2y agoThings break all the time! Usually they get fixed, but sometimes you're just too busy to get around to it.
- autoexecbat 2y agoThat sounds like much more of a nuanced law question than a "are these the same". While they might be able to stop you telling the world, they might not be able to force you to perform actions that cause you to lie to the public
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoNot a lawyer, but I think the government has more ability to prevent you from doing something than forcing you to act. They can tell you to not remove the canary, and not tell anyone your logs are being monitored, but it is trickier for them to say you must re-sign this certificate.