5 ms·
Warrant canary depends on agreed upon inaction, which shields it somewhat. You cannot exactly compel speech by a gag order. This, being an active process, if f
by AstralStorm 11mo ago
Warrant canary depends on agreed upon inaction, which shields it somewhat. You cannot exactly compel speech by a gag order.
This, being an active process, if found out, is violating a gag order by direct action.
- votepaunchy 11mo agoWarrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. It’s too clever but no more clever than what Israel is requiring here.
- gruez 11mo ago>Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. No, they can simply not publish a warrant canary in the future, which will tip people off if they've been publishing it regularly in the past.
- mikeyouse 11mo agoRight - the whole premise is that the government cannot compel speech (in the US). So if you publish something every week that says, “we’ve never been subpoenaed as of this week” and then receive a subpoena, the government can’t force you to lie and publish the same note afterwards. The lack of it being published is the canary here.
- d1sxeyes 11mo agoWhether you can be compelled to lie under these circumstances or not is not a resolved question of law. Although it seems fairly likely that compelling speech in this way is unconstitutional, if it has been tested in court, the proceedings are not public.
- lazide 11mo agoGood thing no one is doing anything unconstitutional right now?
- 8note 11mo agothe canary notification method is a lack of updates, not a specific update. you update your canary to say that nothing has changed, at a known cadence. if you ever dont make the update, readers know that the canary has expired, and so you have been served a gag order warrant. changing or removing the canary in response to a warrant is illegal. not changing it is legal. for an equivalent cloudwatch setup, its checking the flag for "alarm when there's no points"
- verdverm 11mo agoI would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made
- hrimfaxi 11mo agoYes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.
- joshuamorton 11mo agoMore specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.
- Andrex 11mo agoAh, that was confusing to me. Thank you.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- yencabulator 10mo agoAs far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company. Do you have a more custom example in mind?