How To Foil NSA Sabotage: Use a Dead Man's Switch

mspohr writes "Cory Doctorow has an interesting idea published in today's Guardian on how to approach the problem of NSA 'gag orders' which prevent web sites, etc. from telling anyone that they have been compromised. His idea is to set up a 'dead man' switch where a site would publish a statement that 'We have not been contacted by the government' ... until, of course, they were contacted and compromised. The statement would then disappear since it would no longer be true. He points out a few problems... Not making the statement could be considered a violation of disclosure... but, can the government force you to lie and state that you haven't been contacted when you actually have?" Rsync.net has been doing this for years; rather than the statement disappearing in case of an NSL being issued, it simply would stop updating. Indeed, their canary text also points out the same possible flaws: "This scheme is not infallible. Although signing the declaration makes it impossible for a third party to produce arbitrary declarations, it does not prevent them from using force to coerce rsync.net to produce false declarations. The news clip in the signed message serves to demonstrate that that update could not have been created prior to that date. It shows that a series of these updates were not created in advance and posted on this page."

Comments

What do you mean by "can"?

[kju]

can the government force you to lie and state that you haven't been contacted when you actually have

As we should have learned, the government by large does not care if they "can" (in a legally sense), they just do it. But if necessary: Those rubber stamp courts will surely find a way to make it happen in a way which is legal on paper.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Joce640k]

All these tricks are just wishful thinking.

If other people learn you've been contacted then you're guilty no matter how you did it - by telling them or by stopping updates to a web site. It's all communication.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[FriendlyLurker]

Speaking of foiling NSA and other of the worlds shadowy sky organizations shenanigans, there are some great ideas floating about like this one posted a few NSA stories back by Anachragnome: "The NSA has made it clear that making connections--following the metadata--is often enough to get an investigation started. So why not do the same thing? Turn the whole thing around? Start focusing on their networks."

A sort of They Rule type network connection analysis on lists of people involved, start tallying connections and contacts build dossiers and trust-worthiness - combined with dead man switches for websites and professionally shunning anyone/organizations that have worked to subvert the security of the internet in favor of spying and undermining the social contract of the internet.

In related news Reddit co-founder was exposed as wanting to sign up and use Reddit/his reputation as a mouthpiece/research partner for Stratfor. Stratfor turned him down they already had people from the social networking world working for them apparently. Given Slashdot appears to give regular airtime to well known warmongering trolls, will anyone be surprised if most sites like Slashdot are already on the payroll...

The truth, it's just a leak away, it's just a leak awaaay....

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[TWiTfan]

Sadly, this is the state of the country that I was once taught was supposed to stand for freedom in the world.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[TWiTfan]

Agreed. In an America of secret courts, indefinite detention without trial or habeas corpus, secret police who prohibit you from even telling anyone they've contacted you, etc.--the concept of "proving yourself innocent" is laughable. "Because we said so" is the only charge the feds need anymore. Everything else is just dressing.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Defenestrar]

In the case of a signed (and dated) statement, you still hold the controlling factor and would necessitate coercion on the behalf of the other party. If the other party (government or individual) is willing and able to bear sufficient coercion upon you to acquiesce to perjury, than the system fails. So, one should only implement such a model if one believes that the level of coercion is within the limits of one's conviction to resist - otherwise you're setting yourself and your "trusted" parties up for compromise.

A "dead man switch" system like this certainly lends itself to a civil disobedience of passive resistance in the tradition of Gandhi, and MLK Jr. But what level do you go for? If I recall right (and strongly paraphrasing), Gandhi's solution to the atomic threat was to allow yourself to be nuked so that the children of the "victor" would express enough horror at the methods that they would reject the philosophy used for the strike and therefore giving the "victim" the final moral victory. Personally, I suspect that I am vulnerable to coercion threatening the annihilation of my entire nation - and probably even a lesser version closer to home.

One thing I've learned about the country with the Bill of Rights is that there are times when the government does exceed its authority, and sometimes even the courts rubber stamp it (although not always - look at Jackson and the Supreme Court), but ultimately a correction factor is applied. Sometimes this is a groundswell of public ire, a brave confrontation like Ed Murrow, and often a combination of the two (i.e. civil rights in the '60s). Although occasionally, due to lack of notoriety or some such, the lesson isn't completely learned until the next generation reads it in their history books (i.e. syphilis study).

Finally, one also need to make sure that anyone else with the authentication to substitute for you holds the same convictions. For example, Thoreau only spent the one night in jail because someone else paid his poll taxes.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Lumpy]

Secret? They do that openly. It is common knowledge they can jail you forever without trial or even telling you of what crime you may have violated. And the American public love it because it's "fighting terrorisim".

Secret means it's hidden, All of this is out in the open and publicly accepted.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[mounthood]

As we should have learned, the government by large does not care if they "can" (in a legally sense), they just do it. But if necessary: Those rubber stamp courts will surely find a way to make it happen in a way which is legal on paper.

Techies never seem to understand this, even though they read it over-and-over: the law is not a set of rules you work with, "it's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here." If an NSL isn't the right excuse, they'll make another.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Defenestrar]

... The truth, it's just a leak away, it's just a leak awaaay....

And if you have potatoes, then the truth can bring some awesome soup with it

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[BrokenHalo]

If I recall right (and strongly paraphrasing), Gandhi's solution to the atomic threat was to allow yourself to be nuked so that the children of the "victor" would express enough horror at the methods that they would reject the philosophy used for the strike

Trouble is, the history books tend to be written by the victors.

...Although occasionally, due to lack of notoriety or some such, the lesson isn't completely learned until the next generation reads it in their history books...

And given that so many people increasingly do not read at all (except in gobbets of 140 characters), I don't hold out much hope that their attention span will accommodate a book of any length.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[dave3548]

No, we don't "love it", we're appalled, angry, embarrassed and saddened. Trust in government is at an all-time low.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Kjella]

In the case of a signed (and dated) statement, you still hold the controlling factor and would necessitate coercion on the behalf of the other party. If the other party (government or individual) is willing and able to bear sufficient coercion upon you to acquiesce to perjury, than the system fails. So, one should only implement such a model if one believes that the level of coercion is within the limits of one's conviction to resist - otherwise you're setting yourself and your "trusted" parties up for compromise.

Perjury is lying under oath, it's not lying in general. And the law (whichever nefarious one enables National Security Letters to exist) trumps whatever contractual obligations you may have made. They already actively demand you comply with their demands, not merely stand aside and let them do their business. Hidden in a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo it basically comes down to "If you ask me if we've been compromised by the NSA, which is obviously a yes/no question I'm going to answer it with no but if I refuse to answer well draw your own conclusions." do you think you'll get away with that? All the rest is just a diversion.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Anonymous Coward]

A somewhat vocal minority think the government has gone too far in its war on terrorists. Perhaps you remember the TSA's short-lived attempt to relax restrictions. My local news never has any trouble finding a member of the public willing to say how much safer they feel each time a government agency proposes a new search method or new restriction.

Slashdot is a libertarian-leaning echo chamber and not representative of America.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[interkin3tic]

Perhaps they meant "do we know the government has already given itself the ability" to foil this method?

Focusing on specific known facts is useful if you're trying to be practical in designing something. You can't account for every potential scenario obviously. The government could authorize itself to kidnap your loved ones and threaten to flay them alive until you tell them your password, it's certainly within their capabilities. However, you can't design security around everything the government or other possible criminals COULD do.

If you are trying to make a secure alternative to lavabit, for example, hopefully there will be a lag while they get clearance to compensate for this method. In that lag, the trigger could be tripped. Government goons might go ahead and beat you until you update the site without clearance, however the chances of that are smaller: beating you would be a bigger story, and bigger stories tend to leak. Without approval, the people beating you would be the scapegoats and would end up in jail.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Travelsonic]

A somewhat vocal minority think the government has gone too far in its war on terrorists. Perhaps you remember the TSA's short-lived attempt to relax restrictions. My local news never has any trouble finding a member of the public willing to say how much safer they feel each time a government agency proposes a new search method or new restriction. Slashdot is a libertarian-leaning echo chamber and not representative of America.

That's why almost every article on the TSA I've read, Mr. A.C, has people lambasting the TSA more than not in the comments section [and lambasting those supporting the TSA in comment form in said comments section], right? *rolls eyes*

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Cormacus]

Dab of sour cream on top please.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[NatasRevol]

That doesn't make it illegal, even if some bullshit order by some bullshit court thinks it is.

Time to move to the next box.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet what are we doing about it? Nothing. Ergo, it is accepted.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not telling them is, very specifically, not communication. It's a lack of communication. You've been gagged, and you can no longer communicate. That's what a gag order is for. Think of it as a wad of cloth tied through your mouth. You can't say anything. And since you can't do that anymore, you can't change the dead man's message.

My initial thoughts about this weekend's "X-No-Wiretap header" story were exactly this: a header that can be polled via HEAD request to notify you if the site is compromised by the NSA or other government coercion before you make a GET request.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Dishevel]

Dab of sour cream on top please.

The truth is always better with sour cream.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[wvmarle]

No, we don't "love it", we're appalled, angry, embarrassed and saddened.

No doubt there are also in the US many people who are appalled, angry, embarrassed and saddened about these indefinite detentions. However there are obviously not enough of them. Not enough people in the US that really want it to be changed, not enough people there that go to the streets and protest against those human rights violations, not enough people there voting for politicians who make fixing it their primary item.

Most of the rest of the world wants it to be changed. I really hope you guys can fix this issue, instead of trying to make such behaviour the norm and pull more and more other countries (most notably in Europe) into this.

Trust in government is at an all-time low.

Do you have anything to back up that claim? Or is it just your personal opinion?

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Lumpy]

Yes you do. I was born and raised in the USA and most everyone I meet approves of everything that they do to fight the boogymen.
It is RARE to find someone that actually wants the govt to follow the constitution.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[wvmarle]

In the case of a signed (and dated) statement, you still hold the controlling factor and would necessitate coercion on the behalf of the other party. If the other party (government or individual) is willing and able to bear sufficient coercion upon you to acquiesce to perjury, than the system fails. So, one should only implement such a model if one believes that the level of coercion is within the limits of one's conviction to resist - otherwise you're setting yourself and your "trusted" parties up for compromise.

Not giving in for long enough for your "dead man switch" or "canary" to expire is long enough. Like the example of rsync.org; they'd only have to delay the update for a single day and (assuming there is someone actually paying attention to it) the message is out. That one day should be manageable. Especially as the message can not be prepared in advance (thanks to the news snippets) the government can't do much until the new message is due to be created.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

The voting numbers don't reflect that. 98% vote to keep things as they are. If people are so angry about it, they should be angry and embarrassed with themselves. Our communications systems are better than ever. There is no excuse.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Somebody Is Using My]

Sadly, this is the state of the country that I was once taught was supposed to stand for freedom in the world.

Fortunately, it actually isn't.

That is not to say that there are not some decidedly concerning excesses being committed by the government and its partners. From overreach by the executive branch, to undisciplined agencies like the NSA running havoc across our Constitutionally-protected (but not granted, important difference!) rights, down to the increasing aggressiveness of our police force, there are undoubtedly serious problems we as a nation need to face up to and rectify. These symptoms are indicative of a very worrying trend and it is right for Americans - and, indeed, citizens across the world - to take note of and speak against.

But even cynical as I am, the despairing belief that the United States of America is currently little more than a well-disguised police-state is so blatantly false to anyone who lives here as to be laughable. I'll not deny that we might one day end in such a place and we must fight against it. But America still remains a bastion of freedom and while it may no longer be a beacon guiding others, it still shines brightly enough. That we can have this conversation without fear of retribution at all is testament to that fact. That (barring a further slide into tyranny) I expect to go through my life without worrying about ending up in a gulag for my particular beliefs is a testament to that fact. That I have an opportunity - however slight it may be - to help change the direction of this country should I chose to do so is testament to this fact.

I still believe - contrary even to my expectations - that most Americans hold true to the ideals of this nation and would, given the chance, work to correct this nation onto a more favorable path. This even includes many of those we've granted positions of authority over ourselves. But between the vast bureaucracy of the government, the confusing melange of messages we get from the media and the self machinations of corporations, it is easy for these same Americans to feel powerless and so they do nothing. It's less apathy than a lack of a clear direction; they want to keep this country true to its ideals but do not know how - and worse, do not believe they can effect a change.

So rather than despair I encourage people to remember what makes this nation great and fight against those who would destroy it for their own short-term gains. Don't just accept the status quo or through excess cynicism allow justice to slip through our fingers. Speak out against these illegal actions, both to fellow citizens and to your representatives in both the state and federal governments. More to the point, do not through inaction be an accomplice to such un-American activities such as the NSA has been enacting; take a stand against them. You don't have to directly oppose them, just don't be their agent; if there are those who wish to subvert the ideals of this nation, make them do their own dirty work. Even if your tiny resistance barely slows down the behemoth, combined we can force a new and better direction for this country. It's also why people in authority fear the Internet and strive to suborn its intent; it allows a collectivism amongst citizenry that has never before been possible. Use this great tool to encourage others - with words and ideas - to strive towards the great dream of America rather than merely accept an "inevitable boot to the face forever".

This nation is at a critical juncture and our leaders are either unwilling or feel unable to enforce a change. It's time to remind them who truly wields the power in America - its citizenry. Don't mourn the passing of our freedoms before we even lose them; instead, stand up for those freedoms and warn those who would take them away that's not where we want this country to go.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Jawnn]

No, we don't "love it", we're appalled, angry, embarrassed and saddened. Trust in government is at an all-time low.

I beg to differ. You and I may be appalled, angry, embarrassed, etc., but the American public, in general, seems quite content to let their government continue the ass-ramming they've been giving to our Constitution since 2001.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[operagost]

I don't know... polls? They all show trust in Congress below 20%, and trust in the President oscillates between 40% and 50% depending on how sympathetic the source is and what lies he's told this week.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[rvw]

And yet what are we doing about it? Nothing. Ergo, it is accepted.

No, we just haven't figured out how to handle this in such a way that it sorts any effect without distroying our lives.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Archangel Michael]

Government does ______ , because the people "wants" them to do _______, but then complain about it later. The people DON'T want the government to do nothing, they want the government to do everything. They keep voting for more government and then complain about the consequences of more government. This is the natural order of big government, as it slowly enslaves the people.

Ask yourself, is your government doing what YOU want? Chances are, you do not WANT what the government is offering you, but yet you keep voting for the same Republicrats over and over again, expecting different results. Obama is GWB, only worse. The people wanted "Change", but what they got was more of the same, only worse. And Next election cycle, the (R)s will win more seats and nothing will change. And then people get fed up with the (R) and vote (D), and nothing will change, except the slow erosion of liberty.

We the people, if we have the power, can change the status quo. We the people, in mass, want the government we have, which is why it never changes. See my Sig for details.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Zemran]

Stop hosting in the US, I moved to Germany (hosting) and will not move back. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is not perfect but it is miles better.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Archangel Michael]

The problem isn't that there isn't enough people, the problem is the false dichotomy of Republicrats and Demicans. We are presented with a false choice, told not to "waste" our vote by breaking the bonds of the one party rule.

We either get the government we want, or deserve. I don't know which is worse.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[jafiwam]

And yet what are we doing about it? Nothing. Ergo, it is accepted.

It will be accepted until it is not. Naturally. Thanks for stating the obvious, Sheldon.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[Anonymous Coward]

But America still remains a bastion of freedom

Go take a trip around the world. Our freedom isn't particularly impressive in comparison anymore.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[dryeo]

Congress is still pretty well pure Democrats and Republicans. I believe all State governments are Democrats and Republican.
America is supposed to be a democracy, voting for someone different would be a step in handling an out of control government.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[dryeo]

Isn't that the normal numbers? Democrats and Republicans keep winning the most important poll, namely the election even though one of the few things both parties agree on is the security BS.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[X0563511]

I'm pretty sure you could find someone to say anything, for the right price.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Baloroth]

Ah yes. Personal anecdotes, such reliable scientific evidence. However, actual polls on the subject (which, granted, aren't terribly scientific either, but are about the best thing available) show most (roughly 70-80%) generally do not trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time. And that's not updated for the NSA leaks that came out this year. That's not the only source that shows that, either: most polls show in that same percentage. The US people really do not trust their government, and haven't really for decades.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The voting numbers don't reflect that. 98% vote to keep things as they are. If people are so angry about it, they should be angry and embarrassed with themselves. Our communications systems are better than ever. There is no excuse.

The 2% is moving to New Hampshire. It's the communication systems you mention that even makes this possible. Where it goes from here, only time will tell, but keeping that 2% spread out and politically powerless is not a solution. Political migrations are slow and difficult, but have a proven track record over a long-enough time period.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[he-sk]

Well said.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[celtic_hackr]

Well, there might be a way around it. Disclaimer: This is not legal advise, blah blah blah...

It's possible to post a legally binding statement, such as "Under penalty of perjury, I/we declare we have not been contacted by the government as of yesterday." Make this a daily post, that ages out and disappears at the end of the day. Then each day you have to re-post it. This would be an act of communication.

Now, this should work because, you cannot be forced to commit perjury, even by a court. I.E. you cannot be ordered to commit a crime, and perjury is a crime.

So, it should be workable, because if you get contacted by a secret court order, you can't commincate that without commiting a crime, but you can't put up a new statement, without committing a crime. Not puttinig the statement up is not an act of communication, but a lack of a communication. Sure the lack of a communication may imply the opposite, and the court could order you to put up a statement saying you haven't been contacted, but it can't order you to commit perjury.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[superdave80]

They all show trust in Congress below 20%

That particular polls means dick. People think that their members of congress are just peachy (they keep re-electing them over and over). It's all those other congressional members from those other states that are the problem.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[celtic_hackr]

You all seem to miss the important aspects here.

1) Most Americans I talk with, who know about these things happening, hate everything that is going on.
2) But a good number of people aren't paying attention to most of it. My wife, and most of my close family, being among them. And these people don't want to know, because they know they'll get upset and frustrated about it.
3) Among those who know and are disgusted, few complain about it except to friends. Why, because, most of this activity doesn't have an immediate impact on Americans ability to travel "freely", buy food, earn a comfortable living, have spendable money and the ability to spend it mostly how they want, raise a family without major restrictions, go to the church of their own choice, live in any neighborhood they can afford, eat what they what, and have entertainment they want. In other words daily life in the USA is fairly stable and unrestricted. People are comfortable. Until, the activities of the government get so overbearing that life is no longer comfortable, few will be willing to do anything about it.
4) The American Revolution didn't happen because the middle class people weren't comfortable anymore. Life was not really that bad in American Colonies back then. The American Revolution happened because the wealthy were feeling uncomfortable and the Crown was messing with their livlihoods.

Ergo, nothing is going to change, unless:
1) The government actions start having a serious impact on the upper classes, or
2) The government makes life so hard for the average citizen that they have no choice but to revolt. You can complain to your politicians till you're blue in the face and it likely won't change anything, for long. They will relent, for a while, and then try it again when they think you aren't looking. Search your feelings, you know this to be true., or
3) Enough people get fed up and actually start a new political party, that alters the landscape.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

The solution is to find a way to elect and appoint people who will do the right thing, and keep them on that path even when the existing bureaucracy is out to horribly screw with them. Many people have attempted this path, few if any succeed.

Rather, if at any point the problem still exists and that's not the solution, a complete change in government is the only remaining option. I don't say that flippantly, as it will come with a lot of bloodshed, misery, and loss. If you can't elect anyone to fix the system, it is no longer a republic, let alone a democratic republic.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[celtic_hackr]

You need to get out more. And stop haning out at that loser bar. Your sphere of friends is too small.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[celtic_hackr]

The American public, in general, seems quite content to let their government continue the ass-ramming they've been giving to our Constitution since 1783.

There fixed that for ya.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[celtic_hackr]

But the relevant question is, are you willing to spend the rest of your short life in prison to make that point?

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

The voting numbers don't reflect that. 98% vote to keep things as they are.

Please explain to me how to vote against it. There is no option for that on the ballot and the powers that be won't allow any.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[TWiTfan]

Every other party beside Republican and Democrat in the U.S. is either single-issue (i.e. the Green Party) or extremist wack-job (i.e., the Libertarians). There are no other mainstream parties to vote for. It's either Kang or Kodos--and both are the same as voting for Corporations.

Now, you can well argue that someone should START such a mainstream new party, but it hasn't happened in 150 years. So no one is holding their breath. These days making a serious run for office requires serious money, and no one is under any delusions that a Freedom and Decency Party is going to get any serious funding.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

But even cynical as I am, the despairing belief that the United States of America is currently little more than a well-disguised police-state is so blatantly false to anyone who lives here as to be laughable.

You're drinking the coolaid. The US Library of Congress doesn't even know how many laws there are much less what they may be. The people who create the tax code have no idea how to follow it. You have to devote your career to the tax code to have even a reasonable understanding of it. Just given those 2 pretty much everyone in the US is a criminal. And the NSA is busy collecting all the evidence and then secretly giving it to the police to use against you when ever they want. Sure you can protest as long as you only do within the Government mandated restrictions. Step out of those bounds and you're off to jail.

That we can have this conversation without fear of retribution at all is testament to that fact.

I can't find it at the moment but just yesterday I was reading an article that the Chinese government allows people to talk and complain about the government as much as they want. As long as it's just talk. Once actions start any dissent is oppressed. This bares a striking resemblance to what happened with the Occupy Wall Street movement. It was all good and fine until people actually started doing something. Then the peaceful protest were forcible oppressed. You have just enough freedom to keep you in line. If you get out of line those freedoms all go away.

Wish I had time to write more but I'm on lunch.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Khashishi]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163964/congress-approval-rating-remains-near-historical-lows.aspx

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

There are more than two possible choices on your ballot. Use them wisely, or quit your bellyaching. Following the herd is your choice and nobody else's. We have the system that we built and sustain. All the bullshit can't happen without our help.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Yakasha]

The voting numbers don't reflect that. 98% vote to keep things as they are.

Please explain to me how to vote against it. There is no option for that on the ballot and the powers that be won't allow any.

I voted for Gary Johnson. You could have too. Maybe next time you won't throw your vote away on a Demopublican like Obama.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[sjames]

Legally speaking, not necessarily. While it is well established that it is legal to order someone not to talk about something, there is no established legality to ordering a person to say something they don't want to say, particularly if it is a lie (otherwise, witness testimony becomes worthless in court).

Meanwhile, since the signing key used for the updates is not evidence of a crime and is your personal property, it would be hard to claim you committed a crime by destroying it (making a future update impossible), especially if (likely) whatever TLA is trying to butt in didn't have the foresight to at least attempt to demand the key in advance.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[sjames]

If, at the moment you are contacted you destroy the only copy of the key you use for signing a canary message, no amount of coercion will create a new canary message. You can hope that will be obvious enough that it won't be tried.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[RevDisk]

Meh. Most people don't care because they're generally too busy trying to pay the bills, raise their kids, keep the car running, etc. More than 70% of Americans don't want to get involved in Syria. A lot of the more neutral polls show much much softer support for indefinite detention, pervasive surveillance state and the rest. Without rigged polls, the majority wants basically the status quo. They're fine with some degree of horrific government authority, for edge cases. They're not exactly drooling for the NSA to become the next Stasi.

That's how it always has been, that's how it always will be. The majority don't want to rock the boat because they're too busy trying to live. It's only a relatively handful of ideological extremists on either end of the spectrum that tend towards radical change, usually for the worse.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[RevDisk]

My dad was a mid level political player in state politics. Even he joked that if voting could change anything, it'd be illegal. He grew up with the Philly Democrat machine. Every election was basically fixed. Republicans have their own parts of the country that they "own" as well.

Funny part is, even the people within the political machines with near certain victories tend to feel like they can't radically fix things because the system won't allow it. I'm not kidding, I've had politicians basically tell me so while intoxicated. "Your district is 99.99% (insert Repub or Dem), short of being caught with a live boy or dead girl, you're getting re elected. What's stopping you from going Ron Paul*? - You don't understand. You can't fight the system. You only have so much leeway to work within." * Not specifically endorsing Ron Paul, he's just well known for bucking the party line when it came to votes. I meant "Do whatever you want regardless of your party's desires."

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[paavo512]

...you can't put up a new statement, without committing a crime.

... and you can't avoid putting it up, without commiting another crime (communicating the event). In my book this reads you are already guilty in advance and go straight to jail. Playing a smart-ass does not work with bullies!

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I voted for Gary Johnson. You could have too. Maybe next time you won't throw your vote away on a Demopublican like Obama.

So I get to choose between economic policies I believe in but civil liberties policies I hate, economic policies I hate and civil liberties policies I hate, or voting for an unwinnable candidate with economic policies I hate, but who won't grope me!

Giant Douche, Turd Sandwich, meet Useless Jackass.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Actually, I don't believe in the economic policies of any of the three, come to think about it. I temporarily confused what they said with the truth.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[BranMan]

The government then grants you immunity from prosecution for that act of perjury. Poof! There goes your escape clause - now put up the damn statement or else.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

There are more than two possible choices on your ballot. Use them wisely, or quit your bellyaching.

None of the choices on any ballot in the current system are going to make a lick of difference. The system as it stands is completely broken. Continuing to vote in the current system does nothing but perpetuate it. And it's not bellyaching. It's leaving the "America land of the free" fantasy world and facing up to the facts. A lot more people need to do it before anything is going to change.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

Funny part is, even the people within the political machines with near certain victories tend to feel like they can't radically fix things because the system won't allow it. I'm not kidding, I've had politicians basically tell me so while intoxicated.

Ramen to that. This is what people need to wake up to. Voting within the current system isn't going to change anything. Problem is everyone is so tied up in "America bastion of democracy and land of the free" they can't see past the propaganda they've been bombarded with their entire lives.

That brings up the question. How does one change the system short of violent revolution? Given the technology available today and the open source paradigm I truly believe direct democracy is practical in a society like America's. But how do we get there?

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

Stay with the herd then. Your compliance is noted and appreciated.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

Stay with the herd then. Your compliance is noted and appreciated.

Ummm...you really need to look in a mirror. So you're breaking out of the herd by going out and voting with everyone else even though it won't and can't change anything? Non-compliance is plodding along doing exactly what the government tells you all good citizens are supposed to do? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

I wish I had mod points, because you're the one person that nailed it.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

So you're breaking out of the herd by going out and voting with everyone else even though it won't and can't change anything?

The numbers speak for themselves. You can't expect any change until people at least make a feeble effort to vote for it. You people all talk in circles. You expect all these fantastic things and then vote against them. 'Reform' can only travel in one direction, from the bottom up. If you want any changes in the law, you simply have to vote for people that will implement them. There is no other way in a democratic republic. Now, if the majority votes against the Party, and it doesn't peaceably leave the premises, you might have a point. Until then you're just another complainer. And you are right. The problem, you will find in the mirror.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

But how do we get there?

I don't know. How 'bout we take a vote? I'll tell you this though. I don't want to live under the thumb of an ignorant majority any more than what we have now. Direct democracy throws 49% of the population under the bus. The system, the gangsterism that thrives through weak and corrupt politicians that we vote for, who cannot otherwise occupy the office, all of it, it's all ours.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[gottabeme]

New Hampshire? Huh?

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[gottabeme]

I think that would be as legally binding as saying, "If I'm lying, you can shoot me." If someone then found out you were lying and shot you, he'd still be guilty of murder. "Perjury" isn't a magic word you can use in an incantation to invoke special powers.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[gottabeme]

You're drinking the coolaid. The US Library of Congress doesn't even know how many laws there are much less what they may be. The people who create the tax code have no idea how to follow it. You have to devote your career to the tax code to have even a reasonable understanding of it. Just given those 2 pretty much everyone in the US is a criminal.

I think that argument can work both ways. If they don't know the laws, they can't enforce them. Yeah, maybe if one of them wanted you in jail so badly he could find some random law you broke. But that's less of a worry than them simply declaring you to be a terrorist or national security risk and detaining you without charges. They don't need to find a law for you to have broken to do that.

And the NSA is busy collecting all the evidence and then secretly giving it to the police to use against you when ever they want. Sure you can protest as long as you only do within the Government mandated restrictions. Step out of those bounds and you're off to jail.

Eh, you're exaggerating and generalizing. The NSA is certainly not piping data to local police departments--they aren't even part of the same governments. And even the FBI won't get anything from them without having specifically targeted someone. Don't forget how incompetent and inefficient most of the government is, especially inter-agency. Not that I'm excusing them, but I think these specific fears are unjustified.

Besides, I really think they just don't care about J. Random Citizen complaining on the street or on the Internet. That's not a threat to them. They're more likely to feel threatened by journalists, as we have seen.

That we can have this conversation without fear of retribution at all is testament to that fact.

I can't find it at the moment but just yesterday I was reading an article that the Chinese government allows people to talk and complain about the government as much as they want. As long as it's just talk. Once actions start any dissent is oppressed. This bares a striking resemblance to what happened with the Occupy Wall Street movement. It was all good and fine until people actually started doing something. Then the peaceful protest were forcible oppressed. You have just enough freedom to keep you in line. If you get out of line those freedoms all go away.

Wish I had time to write more but I'm on lunch.

More generalizing. The U.S. governments (yes, plural) are not the Chinese government. And you're generalizing the OWS thing as well. Most of the people who participated were not oppressed or arrested. Those that were were not harassed by federal agents but by the NYPD. I don't think they take orders from the FBI--at least, not to do mass arrests. And besides, some of those who were arrested may have actually broken laws and ignored warnings. Just stop generalizing; it doesn't help rational discussion.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[gottabeme]

Does your data still pass through the USA? The UK? Sheesh, now your data is no longer domestic, so you're even more of a target. Way to go.

Germany is hardly a nation that holds freedom of speech in high regard. Plenty of types of speech are illegal there. And who knows, maybe they're worse than the NSA but haven't had a whistleblower yet.

The bottom line hasn't changed: either use strong encryption or assume your Internet traffic isn't truly private. And any data out of your physical control isn't under your control.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[celtic_hackr]

Actually, a digitally signed statement that can be authenticated as coming from a certain person, making use of the under penalty of perjury clause would be found enforceable by a US court. Especially if there is a notarized paper copy attesting to the truth of that statement.

I'm a Notary Public (among many other hats I wear), and take declarations from people and notarize documents which are legally acceptable for court use and are considered as binding as any testimony given under oath in a court, along with the manifest penalties of perjury. I don't know a way of doing a digital notarization. But it is certainly possible to take a declaration from a person, and notarize it. Many companies have notaries working for them, and could do this on a daily basis.

So, while I left out this detail in my original post, it's certainly feasible. As BranMan noted, however, a court could grant immunity from prosecution and then order you to put the message "back up". But, you see there is the rub. They would have to order it before hand to prevent the deadswitch from happening in the first place. Anything after the fact would just be damage control, and probably too late. Some users would probably notice it going away, and then you'd have some explaining to do. Plus the court would have to grant immunity for every day they force you to put it back up, because each day's statement is another violation that is separately prosecutable. The court order would have to be carefully worded.

But, like I said it's an option. Foolproof? Far from it. A country that doesn't respect it's own laws can't be trusted not to do criminal and illegal things to it's citizens, and the judges are plenty capable of getting pissed off by this act and finding some grounds to prosecute. So, like I said, not legal advice, and check with a lawyer, etc, etc, if you try this. I don't run anything where this would be an issue, so I have no stake in it.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Reziac]

I've wondered why they chose NH for that -- seems to me a state with more resources and more space, and already more rooted in a culture of freedom and independence, might have been more appropriate, not to mention having more ability to sustain itself if need be. WY or MT or ND, maybe.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[JimFive]

Nothing. When is the last time that protests actually caused a policy shift in the US? 1776? Protests in the 1930's didn't, protests over Vietnam, Occupy? Nothing. The civil rights protests of the 1960's is the only thing that comes to mind and I'm not sure about those.
--
JimFive

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I've wondered why they chose NH for that -- seems to me a state with more resources and more space, and already more rooted in a culture of freedom and independence, might have been more appropriate, not to mention having more ability to sustain itself if need be. WY or MT or ND, maybe.

NH does have a culture of freedom and independence - most locals are libertarian in nature, if not political. But the biggest issue is that a large state is bad for activism. In NH, every activist can be in any place in the State in less than 3 hours, and the median time is under an hour. There was a protest rally a few weeks ago, organized in less than a week, and 300 people showed up. Montana can be 14 hours from corner to corner.

It's also very important to have a seaport, to keep options open. A landlocked State can ultimately only exert a certain amount of power. Montana at least has Canada as a border, but no access to shipping itself.

They also list more reasons here.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Yakasha]

I voted for Gary Johnson. You could have too. Maybe next time you won't throw your vote away on a Demopublican like Obama.

So I get to choose between economic policies I believe in but civil liberties policies I hate, economic policies I hate and civil liberties policies I hate, or voting for an unwinnable candidate with economic policies I hate, but who won't grope me!

Giant Douche, Turd Sandwich, meet Useless Jackass.

The question was "How do I vote against the current system?"; not "who fits my personal political views". 3rd party voting is how you do it because both major parties support the current system with all their energy.

With such extreme views though ("civil liberties policies you hate"; "unwinnable candidate"; "economic policies you hate"), there is no way for you to ever win, or be happy with who is in power, because nobody apparently is going to match your views exacting enough for you to feel anything other than contempt.

So for you personally to vote against the current system, I recommend you use the final option on the ballot that is always there: the blank line. Vote for Superman, Gary Coleman, or yourself for all I care.

Any vote that does not go to the Demopublicans is a vote against the current system.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

The system, the gangsterism that thrives through weak and corrupt politicians that we vote for, who cannot otherwise occupy the office, all of it, it's all ours.

What "people like you" can't seem to get through your head is that the whole friggin system is broke. It doesn't matter who you vote for. It's the fundimental system as it is currently implemented. Maybe you'll get a car analogy. You can't fix a broke car by continuing to push it around where ever you want to go. No matter who you vote into office they still have to function in the same broken system. As long as that is the case nothing is going to change.

"People like you" live in this dream world built by the BS propaganda we've all been fed our whole lives. Try peeking behind the curtain some day.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

...the whole friggin system is broke.

Yes, I know, we broke it ourselves. And for some reason people think that banging on it with a crescent wrench will fix it.

Now then, do you have an alternate proposal I should consider, or are you just gonna keep saying, *Uhhhh.. I think the motor's fucked up..*? Well CHAA! That's what happens when you put soda pop in gas tank.

Re:What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

I think that argument can work both ways. If they don't know the laws, they can't enforce them.

They're certainly going to know the law better than any normal person and they'll have people that know them much better than your average Joe. If they want someone they just have to dig around and twist meanings. Prosecution overreach happens all the time.

The NSA is certainly not piping data to local police departments

Exaggerating? You sure about that?

Besides, I really think they just don't care about J. Random Citizen complaining on the street or on the Internet. That's not a threat to them. They're more likely to feel threatened by journalists, as we have seen.

Your right. They don't care about people talking. Let them rant and complain all they want. But try to do something that might actually have an impact and they'll get interested real fast.

More generalizing.

The fact that everything didn't happen to everyone doesn't mean I'm generalizing.

Those that were were not harassed by federal agents but by the NYPD.

Some were harassed by federal agents. So you're claiming that local police departments don't work with Federal law enforcement? That's crap. The link above puts the lie to that. Just because they're not all part of one monolithic control structure doesn't mean they can't and aren't working together towards the same goals. Local police departments are militarizing way beyond what's required for a police force. They send fully armed combat teams for mundane arrest that could be accomplished by 2 guys knocking on a door or even a phone call. Guess who's supply all those toys? If they want to keep playing they have to cooperate.

And you're generalizing the OWS thing as well. Most of the people who participated were not oppressed or arrested.

And most of the people who participated in the Tiananmen Square protests weren't either. Enough were to quell the protest. In both cases. Yes, I know the oppression used to quell the OWS protests didn't rise to anywhere near the level of that used for the Tiananmen Square protests but they didn't need that level crush the OWS protest. And I have little doubt the level of violence and other forms of coercion would have risen to what ever was required to crush the protests.. Peaceful protests like that are supposed to be a Constitutional right in this country.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[greenbird]

Now then, do you have an alternate proposal I should consider, or are you just gonna keep saying,

No. I don't have all the answers. I do have some ideas I'm working on. But I'm more of a technically oriented person rather than a PoliSci type. Whether they'll pan out or not is anybody's guess. How about you? You don't believe in direct democracy. I'm not so quick to write it off. But it has to be accompanied by something that allows people to easily and effortlessly keep themselves informed with unbiased or possible equally biased information. How about if it takes a 2/3rds vote to pass but it only takes a 1/3 vote to repeal a law.

One thought is we have to make getting involved in the political process as easy as updating Facebook. We're trying to use an 18th century system in a modern world where technology has made it obsolete. There has to be a much better way. What we need is a lot of smart people figuring out how to implement a better system. Kinda like what happened in a little backwater country in the late 18th century.

The biggest initial hurdle is getting people to recognize the current system is broke. The propaganda machine is strong and is being driven by a lot of existing powers that stand to lose a lot with change.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[fustakrakich]

The 'system' is a perfect reflection of our true nature. For the system to change, our nature has to change. The cosmetics we put on the outside cannot hide what's on the inside. I'm not gonna go all 'yogi' (heh, flashback) on you but to say all the bullshit about introspection, setting the example, and knowing when to duck, is true.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Reziac]

Montana may have no access to a seaport, but it controls a good part of the national rail network, and has sufficient resources for export tariffs, and that no citizen ever need go hungry.

And I don't see distance as a drawback -- what business does the state have regulating anything larger than a county, which in MT are about the size of NH? :)

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[dryeo]

Here in Canada we often get new parties, especially at the Provincial level. One big difference between the States and Canada is that the federal parties are mostly totally different then the provincial parties, even when sharing a name such as the BC Liberals and Canada Liberal Party they are actually totally unrelated with the BC Liberals being right wing and the federal party more centrist. Our current government started out as a tea party type party based in the western provinces.
Thinking about it I think one of the big differences between Canada and the States is that elections are separated. Provinces have elections whenever, the federal government has elections whenever and municipal elections are separate as well. This is partially due to our Parliamentary system where a government can call an election whenever they want with a 5 year maximum and an election can be forced if Parliament (or Provincial Legislature) loses confidence in the government or the government can't pass a budget. The electorate does get pissed if elections are too often and usually punishes the party that can't keep their shit together. It's impossible to any length of time without a budget.
Having separate elections allow different focuses and more of a variety of parties whereas in the States you guys vote for everyone at once and the option is there to vote along party lines and this encourages the parties being in every level of government. Sadly I don't think it would be easy to change that.
Of course on the flip side having new parties only helps somewhat as the party that goes out of fashion often has a large scale movement to the new replacement party though with lots of retirements as well.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[bill_mcgonigle]

And I don't see distance as a drawback -- what business does the state have regulating anything larger than a county, which in MT are about the size of NH? :)

your end-game is reasonable, but we gotta get from here to there.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Reziac]

I'd actually given that some thought -- if I wind up in one of the smaller counties, the population is small enough that if I ran for public office, I could campaign literally door-to-door to every household. (And if I did -- I figure my duty as a representative is not "this is what I'll do for you", but rather, "what do you need?")

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[bill_mcgonigle]

if I wind up in one of the smaller counties, the population is small enough that if I ran for public office

That is pretty important - one of the advantages we have here is that each House district is about 3000 people. The disadvantage, in most states, of county office, is that State law controls what a county can do, and the most a county officer can do to change those laws is to petition a legislator to do it for him.

But some county offices can have a large effect - sheriffs, judges, registrar of deeds - depending on your location and how they're structured.

Re: What do you mean by "can"?

[Reziac]

In my observation, the worst threats to individual liberty and property rights don't come from above anyway -- they come from little tin gods at the local level (who are necessary to enforce laws from on high as well). City and county zoning and planning, regulatory and local commissioners are the most destructive forces. They're the ones that implement and enforce what the state and federal laws allow (and sometimes beyond), and have the boots on the ground to enforce their edicts.

I could give you a whole slew of examples from Los Angeles County alone, but the most broad and egregious in recent times was an edict about privately-owned wells. I'm no longer there to hear it firsthand but I gather the gist is they've decided the county owns the ground water (there don't seem to be any water rights per se) and therefore own your well. In an area where without private wells, rural land is worthless and uninhabitable. I suppose they plan to enforce this by putting a meter on every well and charging by the gallon, and no doubt our tax bills (I still own property there) will get dinged those costs, at the usual 3x-the-going-rate that contractors to the county wind up being paid. Meanwhile, we still get to absorb the power bills and the cost of building and maintanance (an average rural well there costs $40,000 or more in the first place, plus another 10 grand any time the pump goes out). Meanwhile, a lot of poor rural housing (mostly owner-occupied) was declared illegal for lack of permits that were not required when the houses were built... funny how land speculators were sniffing along right after this'un.

Conversely, a couple years ago Cascade County MT (where I grew up) decided that 90% of their local regulations were variously BS or cruft, and simplified them as much as possible. So if you want to live in a railroad car, go for it. I worked with them on some aspects of the new codes.

Clever Tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to prosecuting, it's entirely alright to punish people based on the spirit of the law. So whatever tricks they tried, as long as they're under a rule of nondisclosure, would land them in deep shit if they disclosed things they were barred from disclosing. However, the spirit of the law is rarely taken into consideration when it helps people, like the whistleblower laws. No one looked to see if the people who were blowing the whistle were exposing corruption or making the country a better place to live, all that mattered was that they violated the letter of the law and needed to be sorry for doing so.

Re:Clever Tricks

[plover]

all that mattered was that they violated the letter of the law and needed to be sorry for doing so.

Close. All that mattered was that they were hunted to the ends of the earth and punished mercilessly as an example to any other would-be whistleblowers.

Re:Clever Tricks

[TWiTfan]

I bet the employee orientation at the NSA and CIA includes the admonition "Yes, you're going to lie to Congress, The President, and the American people. You're going to do it every fucking day, and LIKE it. And if you DON'T like it, either head to Russia or we'll arrange a cell for you right next to Bradley Manning."

Re:Clever Tricks

[NatasRevol]

They probably wait until after the new recruits are ingrained with secret knowledge before the strongarm them to continue their illegal activities.

Re:Clever Tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

...right next to Bradley Manning."

Chelsea Manning, you insensitive clod!

Feds' First Move

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> ... until, of course, they were contacted and compromised.

So the Feds just contact everybody who does this, and we're right back where we started.

Re:Feds' First Move

[lionchild]

Then it falls back on the consumer to stop using the service. Unused services go away and the point becomes moot. New services pop up which are 'clean' and thus the cycle starts all over again.

I like the idea of the dead-man switch. However, if the consumer does what they're supposed to, ultimately they don't win, because they have to keep switching services in this cat-and-mouse game.

exact dupe, and bad idea

[raymorris]

A) this exact story was on Slashdot a couple months ago.
B) judges don't like smartasses who play word games with the law. You can only hope the judge dislikes the NSA even more.

Re:exact dupe, and bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA plays word games all the time... Take for instance the statement "We don't search and store data on 10's of 1000's of Americans".

That statement is factually true if the NSA searches and stores data on the other 330 million Americans. If they exclude their buddies, federal judges, anyone in the FBI, CIA and other three letter government agencies, that would be your 10's of 1000's Americans.

Re:exact dupe, and bad idea

[__aaltlg1547]

The NSA plays word games all the time... Take for instance the statement "We don't search and store data on 10's of 1000's of Americans".

That statement is factually true if the NSA searches and stores data on the other 330 million Americans. If they exclude their buddies, federal judges, anyone in the FBI, CIA and other three letter government agencies, that would be your 10's of 1000's Americans.

No it's not. 330 million is 33,000 tens of thousands.

Re:exact dupe, and bad idea

[Dins]

Yes, but say there are only 30,000 people in the entire country who AREN'T being tracked, then "we don't search and store data on 10's of 1,000's of Americans" is true.

The converse statement is, "We DO search and store data on 329,970,000 Americans"...

Re:exact dupe, and bad idea

[Zappy]

It is probably factually true, there are most likely 10's of 1000's of whom they do not have any data stored or searched.

Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[ehack]

If you like the law, or do not disagree with it, comply.
If you don't like the law, use the democratic process and try and get it changed.
If you don't trust your government, elect another.
And if all else fails, emigrate to China or Russia :)

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[ciderbrew]

If you like the law, or do not disagree with it, comply.
If you don't like the law, comply.
If you don't trust your government, comply.
And if all else fails, comply.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Trepidity]

Most people cannot legally emigrate, so that isn't really an option. If you have dual citizenship, or unique in-demand skills, this may be more feasible, but China is not going to accept random American citizens who want to move there, especially not people who want to move there due to political disgruntlement.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the moral responsibility of every single person to disobey unjust laws.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[TWiTfan]

If you don't like the law, use the democratic process and try and get it changed.

You mean the democratic process where the corporations tell Congress what to do? Because that's the only one I'm familiar with.

If you don't trust your government, elect another.

Yeah, next time we can all vote for Kodos instead!

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Lumpy]

If you want freedom look at Iceland and greenland. They at least are still young enough countries to be honest.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Trepidity]

Iceland and Greenland both heavily restrict immigration, so unless you were born there, you probably cannot move there.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uruguay.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Laxori666]

It's like with voting.
You didn't vote? Then you have no right to complain!
You voted for the guy who didn't win? Well they weren't elected - you have no right to complain!
You voted for the guy who won? Well then this is what you voted for - you have no right to complain!

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[ciderbrew]

You voted for a puppet. He did has he was told, comply.

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[Dins]

Right, but how do you define unjust?

Re:Either comply, change the law, or emigrate.

[SpeedBump0619]

Parent: If you're going out do you want your red coat or your blue one?
Child: It's June here in Texas...
Parent: So, the Red one?
Child: Um...No?
Parent: OK, blue it is.
Child: Nevermind, I'll just stay inside.
Parent: Well, then you should do your chores.

Good luck with this

[schwit1]

Don't expect a prosecutor to buy this argument. Anything you do that alerts others to a gag order will be treated as a violation. You may win in court, but you will be thousands of dollars in debt defending yourself.

Re:Good luck with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything you do that alerts others to a gag order will be treated as a violation.

That's not vaguely true. As we've already seen with various companies closing down, they are allowed to say "I can't provide any details because of a gag order". They can't discuss _WHAT_ they are being prevented from saying but they can most certainly say that they aren't allowed to say something.

Re:Good luck with this

[interkin3tic]

Do prosecutors buy any arguments aside from "Alright, I'll plead guilty if you promise not to fuck me as hard as you say you're going to"?

Anyway, no one said standing up for freedom against the government would be fun, cheap, or easy. This just potentially makes it slightly less costly, slightly easier... and is at least fun to some people to think about in theory.

Re:Good luck with this

[Taibhsear]

Assuming they haven't just shipped you off to gitmo for poking the bear.

Re:Good luck with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Libraries have been doing this for years and I'm not aware of any legal trouble over it.

Re:Good luck with this

[david672orford]

Don't expect a prosecutor to buy this argument. Anything you do that alerts others to a gag order will be treated as a violation. You may win in court, but you will be thousands of dollars in debt defending yourself.

That is the position he will take at press conferences. But will he think he can win in court? He will face formidible obstacles such as:

• The case may bankrupt the defendant, but it will cost the prosecutor big too. It could easily blow up into a multi-year civil-rights battle against top lawyers.
• The gag provisions of the law are distastful to almost everyone including those who think they are an unfortunately necessity.
• The judge may well find the law distastful and be unwilling to enforce more than its letter.
• The law will inevitably face tough constitutional challenges.
• He should expect between multiple friend-of-the-court briefs from large organizations. These will contain extensive legal arguments citing previous cases and authorities probably going back to the 18th century. This will cost the defendant nothing, but the prosecutor will need numberous assistants to study all of them and prepare responses.
• In order to prove his case he will have to reveal classified information. He will have to prove that the accused actually received a secret order and didn't decide to discontinue the announcements for some other reason.
• His every move will trigger another news story in which he will figure in a highly unfavorable light.
• The constant press coverage will keep a distastful law before the public eye which may lead to changes in the law which he would not like.

So yes, it is a risk for the potential defendant, but for the prosecutor it is a trap.

Re:Good luck with this

[bill_mcgonigle]

They can't discuss _WHAT_ they are being prevented from saying but they can most certainly say that they aren't allowed to say something.

The NSL's say that you cannot say that you got an NSL. The First Amendment says you can, so it's a matter of who wants to bring the fight. Apparently Google, et. al. are bringing this one.

Re:Good luck with this

[Toad-san]

"Did the Feds order you to shut up?"

"No."

When you can't answer that question any more .. let people draw their own conclusions.

Oh, and Federal Prosecutor: come on. Give me your best shot.

Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[Anonymous Coward]

I would wait to see to how far the government will crack down on the owner of Lavabit. It's not the same as a regular update but of course the closure of that service sent a distinct message. Perhaps in the end willingly closing your website is the best form of protest you have. I'm curious to know what the result would be if the big players such as Google tried this strategy, if only for a limited time.

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[AHuxley]

It would be a good PR event, some form of a privacy education day?
Recalling the online protests against SOPA and PIPA?

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[plover]

Closing your website as a form of protest simply accomplishes the goals of the administration. If they can prevent your servicing a hundred other bad guys, they may happily choose to sacrifice chasing the one bad guy through your system. (Besides, it's not like there aren't other clues or trails out there.)

Of course, such an act is visible, noble, and it gets people talking; and you're seen as a good person for doing so. But those effects are all transient, and little more than a flap in today's breeze. The administration knows the negativity will fade over time. So over the long term, the closings provide the chilling effect the administration desires.

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[cayenne8]

I'm curious, as that I've not played around with them in years, but are the nym servers , and the mixmaster and other anonymous remailers out there still functioning and useful?

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[__aaltlg1547]

No it doesn't. They want the communications of the people they're looking for to be findable. If terrorists start communication with plain old fashioned handwritten letters that the mark with fake return addresses and drop them in public mailboxes, the NSA is never going to find them without opening every letter, which they can't do.

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[EvilDroid]

You don't think they can x-ray and OCR handwritten letters?

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really can OCR my handwriting they'd be so rich selling it they wouldn't need public funding at all. I usually have hard time reading it myself.

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[AHuxley]

Re but it's not practical.
They just go for the outside text http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/03/the-u-s-government-tracks-all-the-snail-mail-you-send-too/

Re:Watch out what occurs to Lavabit

[Dodgy G33za]

Alternatively if Google are that concerned they could relocate their operations to Iceland and other countries they think might be more reasonable.

The US government would probably get the message if US tech companies starting migrating with all the smart people that they employ.

Er, obstruction...?

[beaverdownunder]

Although cute, this 'idea' is irrelevant. Even if you made the case that you weren't contravening the letter of the request, you could still be charged with obstruction of justice, should your behaviour alter the conduct of the subject(s) under scrutiny. This puts the onus on you to lie.

In short, good luck with that. They're already way ahead of you. Way, way ahead.

Re:Er, obstruction...?

[Trepidity]

I don't think the intent is to argue that it isn't contravening the intent of the gag order due to a technicality, but rather to set up a constitutional challenge to the gag order. Compelled speech is reviewed at a higher level of scrutiny, so if the gag order actually requires you to affirmatively state things that you neither believe in nor are true, that would be a basis for challenging the gag order. You may still lose, but it would require violating a constitutional rule that thus far has been respected.

Re:Er, obstruction...?

[AHuxley]

Yes the East German protesters had a nice hint about that "require violating a constitutional rule" aspect.
Stand in front of an East German Church with a protest sign quoting the East German constitution.
You would go to jail and face the full force of the system but the need for the State to act was seen in public.

Re:Er, obstruction...?

[Therefore I am]

Although cute, this 'idea' is irrelevant. Even if you made the case that you weren't contravening the letter of the request, you could still be charged with obstruction of justice, should your behaviour alter the conduct of the subject(s) under scrutiny.

Fight fire with fire. Set an industry cut-off date to blackball all specialists, technicians and contractors working in these agencies from future employment in the wider commercial IT world. This will quickly remove many thousands of specialists from the surveillance field and eventually bleed it dry. The same technique will work equally well in all countries that have abusive governments...

Re:Er, obstruction...?

[tftp]

Set an industry cut-off date to blackball all specialists, technicians and contractors working in these agencies from future employment in the wider commercial IT world.

I'm amazed at the power that you have over "the wider commercial IT world." But even if it is true, and if your mind control lasers in LEO are able to force all companies in the USA (or worldwide) to refuse employment to the class that is selected by you... don't you think that you'd be committing an even larger violation of human rights? Or, perhaps, "it's OK if *we* do it?"

People work for the government for several reasons; the honest desire to violate rights of their countrymen is probably a driving force for a dozen or two. The rest work for the government because it's a job of the same kind as being a police officer, a soldier, a tax collector... should you, perhaps, blackball them too? Or anyone who ever worked for any government that someone labels as oppressive?

If you want your government to behave, you should not lash out at the people at the lowest rungs of the ladder. They are not in control, and whatever you do to them they cannot change the rules. Furthermore, if you deny them employment elsewhere, they will have to stay with the government - no matter how unconstitutional their current orders might be. They wouldn't have an option to quit. The government would love to have workers who have nothing to lose. Mafia works long and hard to take newcomers past the point of no return.

If you want your government to change its ways you should start at the top - especially because the top bureaucrats are elected by you and other voters. "They don't vote for the right man," you say? Too bad - it's kind of a democracy. You need to convince voters that they shouldn't vote for liar A and instead they should vote for liar B. It's hard. But it's the only way, as long as you stick to democracy, If you do not, the strongest faction gets to install their candidate. It still may be not your faction.

Re:Er, obstruction...?

[tftp]

For some reason it's unconventional for random people to judge others and immediately carry out the sencence. It is not illegal to work for the government. If you want to set up a parallel legal system that is only controlled by you, and judges people by your laws ... it's not exactly democratic. It's called "mob rule," with torches and pitchforks.

After all, what makes you think that your opinion is shared by the majority of voters? If it were, you wouldn't need any of those measures - the majority would just vote to fix what is broken. Since they don't ... do you suppose you are entitled to force them into happiness? Those ideas are not new.

Interestingly enough, the proposal of punishing government workers reminds me of campaigns of terror that were so popular among assorted European revolutionaries between 1880 and 1920. One of them even managed to ignite a World War.

Declaration

[Anonymous Coward]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Re: Declaration

[Kell Bengal]

I don't know baout you, but I was created by my mother and father. By virtue of being human beings, they bestowed upon me the full complement of human rights that we all take for granted. Whether you call your creator your parents, your god or the universe itself is irrelevent - simply by being created human, you possess these rights.

Re: Declaration

[Kielistic]

Perhaps that's why they were declared in law? But please continue making redundant obtuse statements. That's what makes Slashdot so great.

of course they can

[mschaffer]

Of course "the government force you to lie and state that you haven't been contacted when you actually have". They have done far worse. Of course, they can lie about doing it, too.

Re:of course they can

[mwvdlee]

They'll just ask how to maintain the particular "canary" page and handle it themselves.
At no point will you have to personally lie; they'll just do the lying for you.

Re:of course they can

[sjames]

well, first you unburn the USB key that used to have the signing key on it, then....

Re:of course they can

[a_nonamiss]

"...OK, Phil, this one's in league with the terrorists. I'll grab his arms, you go get the bucket..." Remember... everyone ... EVERYONE ... has a breaking point.

Seriously?

[argStyopa]

We're talking about the government doing just about anything they want, and we're wondering if they'd restrain themselves according to something as little as the "letter" of the law?

+2 Funny.
+4 Sad.

Canary, not dead man's switch

[Cow Jones]

A dead man's switch automatically triggers an action when the person in charge can no longer prevent it, because he's dead, detained, or otherwise disabled. (Examples: let go of a hand grenade's handle, send out documents if the person don't check in at least once a week, etc). What this article is talking about is more appropriately called a "canary" (referring to the canary in a coal mine). It does the exact opposite. CJ

Re:Canary, not dead man's switch

[Gibgezr]

If you read TFA, the method suggested by Corey is actually a dead man's switch: when the user fails to respond with a signed version of a random number generated by a website on time, the website notifies all subscribers of the event.

Re:Canary, not dead man's switch

[david672orford]

A dead man's switch automatically triggers an action when the person in charge can no longer prevent it, because he's dead, detained, or otherwise disabled. (Examples: let go of a hand grenade's handle, send out documents if the person don't check in at least once a week, etc). What this article is talking about is more appropriately called a "canary" (referring to the canary in a coal mine). It does the exact opposite. CJ

Cory Doctorow is just looking at it a little differently. A dead man's switch requires the operator to continuously perform a particular action in order to prevent something from happening. For example, he may have to remain in the seat of a tractor in order to keep the engine running. Whether he falls off or gets off, the engine will stop. In this case, the dead man's switch is triggered when the worker gets off the tractor.

The purpose of this dead man's switch is to make the situation ambiguous. If you tell a man not to turn off the tractor and he reaches for the key and takes it out, he has clearly and deliberately disobeyed. But if instead he simply gets out of the seat and takes a coffee break, the matter is not so clear, even if he knew the engine would stop. He has no obligation to operate the tractor during his coffee break.

This scheme is not foolproof, but it doesn't have to be. Its intent is not to make prosecution impossible. It is intended to turn any prosecution into an expensive farce in which the prosecutor would be forced to play the role of the comical villain before a rapt world-wide audiance.

If your sites that interesting

[AHuxley]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/shifting_shadow_stormbrew_flying_pig_new_snowden_documents_show_nsa_deemed.html
Why just watch, track or redirected targeted traffic?
Your site might just have a slight pause in updating as a new crew takes over for a few years.
If they have been watching your 'style' for a few years your internet persona might just become a contractor and your site a front.
Drop or add the message every April Fools' Day?

Post Employment Ad for "legal expert"

[tlk nnr]

The rsync canary is a good idea, another standard approach for delicate communications are job advertisements.

In this case:
A large ad in a suitable newspaper that you are searching for a lawyer.

Why lump everything in one category?

[__aaltlg1547]

There are different ways you might be contacted by the government.

For example, maybe somebody who uses your website stole something. Suppose for example the FBI suspects that person of having sold it to someone else who uses your website and is looking for evidence of the same. So they get a warrant and go throught is one person's email, don't find the evidence they were looking for leave.

In another example, maybe one person who uses your website had his car washed by a guy who got an email from a dude who was seen in a cafe with a suspected terrorist. They issue a National Security Letter that threatens you with horrible consequences if you divulge anything, seize a copy of every record on your site going back to 2005, discover another 50 people who got messages from the guy whose car was washed and by the associative property of terrorism, they're terrorists, you're a terrorist and everybody who uses your site is a terrorist.

See the difference? It's not about being contacted by the government. It's about being swept up in a potentially vast and unwarranted (literally) investigation when you didn't do anything wrong.

Re:Why lump everything in one category?

[AHuxley]

Interesting point about the car wash and a vision of a "massive network chart" and been in the ~3 hops..
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/08/the_cowboy_of_the_nsa_keith_alexander had some insight into just that on page 4:
""Later, we had a chance to review the information. It turns out that all [that] those guys were connected to were pizza shops.""

Re:Why lump everything in one category?

[lightBearer]

I know my reason for being interested in this kind of flag is that the current use of power looks more like abuse of power and until I feel that it is reigned in to a level I'm comfortable with, I want to undermine the (ab)use of that power.

I would rather err on the side of never penalizing the innocent rather than err on the side of always penalizing the guilty if it means that the innocent may be swept up in the dragnet.

Really?

[Grizzley9]

Some elaborate dead man switch about a gag order? No judge will take kindly to such shenanigans. Just make it simple, contact a trusted news reporter/Wikileaks securely or via an anonymous 3rd/4th party you have arranged ahead of time and have them publish.

Re:Really?

[Lumpy]

This actually is the right path. Give all the information to a third party that has the ability to publish all your finding and information that will get it out.

But honestly, just get it out as soon as you get it and do it quietly then erase all evidence that you ever had it. And the key is to STFU about it. Get the info, release it to a group without anything tying back to you, destroy all evidence in your possession, and keep your mouth shut about it for the rest of your life.

Re:Really?

[swillden]

Some elaborate dead man switch about a gag order? No judge will take kindly to such shenanigans. Just make it simple, contact a trusted news reporter/Wikileaks securely or via an anonymous 3rd/4th party you have arranged ahead of time and have them publish.

Or... just publicly state that you have received some number of requests, but can't talk about them due to a gag order. That's what all of the Internet companies have done. Lavabits explicitly said that it was legally unable to discuss the issues.

There don't appear to be any consequences to publicly admitting that you can't say anything.

Obligatory Code

[hacker]

...aaaand, here's some code to use to make your own (which I just posted about only yesterday

#!/usr/bin/perl

use warnings;
use strict;
use LWP::Simple;
use XML::RSS;
use HTML::Strip;
use File::Slurp;

my $url = 'http://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/world/rss.xml';

binmode(STDOUT, ":utf8");

my $hs = HTML::Strip->new();
my @newscanary = '';

my $rss = XML::RSS->new();
my $data = get( $url );
$rss->parse( $data );

my $channel = $rss->{channel};

foreach my $item ( @{ $rss->{items} } ) {
        my $title = $item->{title};
        my $date = $item->{pubDate};
        my $desc = $hs->parse($item->{description});

        # Word wrap the output at 70 characters
        $desc =~ s/(.{70}[^\s]*)\s+/$1\n/xg;

        push @newscanary, "$title\n$date\n" . "-"x70 . "\n$desc\n\n\n";
}

write_file('canary.txt', @newscanary) ;

my $boilerplate = read_file('boilerplate.txt', {binmode => ':raw'});
my $newscanary = read_file('canary.txt', {binmode => ':raw'});

print $boilerplate, $newscanary;

$hs->eof;

Re:Obligatory Code

[DoofusOfDeath]

In Perl??? TERRORIST!!!

Pre-emptive tweet?

[Anonymous Coward]

At what point does a gag-order come into force? Just send a tweet "A government official has just entered the building with an envelope I haven't opened yet. Updates to follow...", followed by no updates.

Useless

[sociocapitalist]

IANAL but IMHO words are only one form of communication and any action that communicates, regardless of the actual mechanism of communication, could be considered a willful violation of a gag order.

Wouldn't it be better ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be better to always have a message saying that you are collaborating with the NSA / currently being gaged. If that siuation does ever occur, you then remove the message because otherwise you will be breaking the law...

Author

[fulldecent]

Hello original author here:

>> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4108553&cid=44622087

Re:Post Employment Ad for "legal expert"

[AHuxley]

To paraphrase a quote in support of NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act):
‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"
Somewhere a lawyer is searching for you.... will you be listed as "inoperative" "excised" "completed"?

inevitable

[PopeRatzo]

The fighting back against the police state has just begun. That the police state will be defeated is a foregone conclusion. The only question is, how many people are going to suffer and maybe die?

I'm convinced that wanting freedom is in our genetic code. Certainly, wanting privacy is. Fighting for it is how we're made.

A lot of us didn't want to think it was this bad, but now that we're finding out, the fight is on, and the outcome certain.

Re:inevitable

[tftp]

The fighting back was always happening, done by individual rebels or by tiny groups of conspirators. A better question to ask is how many of the citizens, percentage-wise, have joined your fight.

How about sound feed?

[Anonymous Coward]

CEO has constant sound feed from office sent to remote non US server not under their control.

Prominent signs in office warn of sound recording (typically legally required).

When the last thing on the sound feed is the CEO being ordered to shut it off and asking to see the relevant authority, everyone knows the company's service is probably compromised.

Or a poster for your library

[daffmeister]

The librarian Jessamyn West has had a similar idea for years.

Re:Or a poster for your library

[oneiros27]

This was my first thought when I saw the summary -- it's been done before; by librarians. (I just couldn't remember the name and/or library system that started it).

Re:You really think you're that important?

[AHuxley]

Did we ever think email service would be that important?

Re:iPhone

[AHuxley]

In 1984 you knew the gov was in your networked tv :)

Aw, that's cute

[FuzzNugget]

Now let me introduce you to my friends, Mr. and Mrs. Nipple Clamp and their neighbor, Sr. Electric Current. Or you can just add the message back onto your website and we can be done here.

Look, I respect Cory. I think he's a pretty good author and an even better freedoms advocate, but if you're betting on the technicality of alerting through inaction instead of action, I don't think you'll like the odds.

yeah, sure, youbetcha!

[mark_reh]

"The statement would then disappear since it would no longer be true. "

and we all know that if something is on the internet it MUST be true...

Exactly right

[Phoenix666]

We all need to ostracize and refuse to have anything to do with any of these people. Looking to hire a subcontractor, and one of the firms in the running has connections to these people? Knock them out of the running and let them and their competitors know why. If we tag and track all of them and make them effectively persona non grata everywhere, and those who do their bidding likewise persona non grata, then we would begin to see change.

Society in general must excise these people or risk imploding catastrophically.

Correction

[Dareth]

the website notifies all subscribers of the "LACK OF AN" event.

Re:Correction

[Gibgezr]

...just like a deadman's switch turns off a device based on the "lack of" the user's hand holding the switch. So, the article was correct in describing Doctrow's suggestion as a deadman's switch.

Re:Correction

[Gibgezr]

Replying to myself, as I just finally realized what you where getting at...oopsy on me!
Yes, it's the lack of an event. There, our OCD has been satisfied :)

TSA court-approved lies

[ThatsNotPudding]

Since the TSA is now allowed to lie https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_tsa_is_lega.html , bbviously so can the NSA spooks.

Wouldn't it be better

[future assassin]

for some high profile people to break the gag orrders, go to jail and start the revolution already. You want freedom yet don't want to stand up for yourzself to take it back. Good luck with that America "Its not gonna happen here" has worked out so well for you.

Who would know to stop updating?

[Glires]

So how would the oblivious tech guy in charge of updating the message know to stop updating the message if the senior executive who knows about the contact and is under the gag order isn't allowed to tell the tech guy to stop updating the message?

Re:Who would know to stop updating?

[lightBearer]

If I had control of this, I'd make a convenient script that gets run at some interval. It doesn't take much to provide someone with a quick-and-dirty script with a desktop icon.

In the case of rsync.net, the message is also signed. I have to assume the key is password protected so the script would include a prompt to enter the password, as well.

With X-Forwarding, SSH and other tools, having the interface to the switch be remote isn't even that difficult anymore. Hell, if the person responsible isn't the least bit tech savvy, you don't even have to rely on the CLI -- PyQT4 can create the UI. I'm sure there are other tools that are cross platform for performing these actions.

Greenland??

[jopsen]

Just fyi greenland isn't a sovereign country... it's a self governing providence of Denmark.
And have been a part of Denmark for about a 1000 years - by comparison the US is a young country :)


In any event, I wouldn't try my luck with greenland, it's really dark and they're not super rich either... and have lots of problems...

But Norway, might actually be a good choice these days... They have too much money/oil, anyone with a university degree in something even remotely useful has a good chance of landing a job... (Which is a pretty essential thing in any immigration procedure).

That said, most European countries aren't particularly open to immigration, unless you're useful or willing to marry some one :)

So.. what exactly happens if you tell?

[Rinikusu]

Just curious, but what is the actual penalty (and to whom does it fall on in a corporate structure) if you actually say "Hey, the NSA contacted us and said we couldn't tell our users about this, but frankly, the NSA can pound sand."?

Guantanomo? Secret Detention in some Third World Hell Hole? Six months in club fed? Fines?

Or are the penalties too secret to tell, as well?

That's not how it works

[xyourfacekillerx]

The method outlined by Doctorow in the linked article would not work, and here is why.

1) They (the government) consider not only the speech of disclosure, but the intent to disclose, and probably therefore the means of conveying the message that constitutes an act of disclosure. When an actual NSL is issued, I would bet the method described in this article could be regarded as an act of disclosure by way of clandestine communication. You would get in trouble for doing this if you were subject to a NSL gag order.

2) Doctorow's method is more particular than the Librarian's method. It actually does involve arrangement of a designee to receive information specifically related to government intel queries. It plainly establishes both intent and expressly indicates means to convey the state of intel inquiries to special parties. The DMS cannot be restrained from publishing anything, but those receiving the gag order conceivably could be prosecuted for communicating with the DMS service.

Finally, and most importantly, the agencies already note that disruption of electronic communication services (like account suspension, website shutdowns, and so on) can be regarded as signals to special parties that an investigation is under way. So, they (the NSA, FBI, whoever) forbid peculiar irregularities in habits of service when they issue nondisclosures. As far as Doctorow's method is concerned, you would likely be prohibited from failing to update your information to the dead-mans-switch in any way other than routine so as not to indicate you have been asked to provide intel information. See, you're providing a service to the DMS, disruption of which service might reveal a security investigation is underway: you can't do that, and they say so in their letters.

Look, I'm not writing about whether it is right or wrong for the NSA to do this, nor whether it is right or wrong for us to expose these situations. I'm just saying, it may seem like a cute little language game for solo citizens, but real companies can't afford to violate a NSL or any other gag order, and that's why they don't do it, plain and simple. The language of the law is pretty clear about why disclosure is prohibited, and violating that law looks to have some pretty severe consequences. Especially if the FBI or NSA or whoever is right when they say that disclosure is a threat to security, and then you're in a world of hurt because your unnecessary expression of speech actually did jeaopardize an investigation where intelligence of a credible threat was real. That's why currently it's up to the courts to remove a gag order, which they can do, if the NSL is BS. Your right to speech is intact; it just has to be reviewed and upheld before you can exercise it. Wait... that doesn't sound right...

However, while the article's method is dubious I think its underlying premise is worthy of further examination. You've tried to find a way to hide the fact of disclosure, or at least put it into legal safe zone. That won't work. Perhaps find a way to hide intent of disclosure?

Their called Warrant canaries

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

NSL delivery

[PPH]

Make the only method of contact with your organization a public drop box. Put a note on your web page: "Place all correspondence in /pub". If anyone wants to see what you've been served with, there it is.

I don't have to provide anyone with a confidential channel over which to contact me. I'm part of The Public". If you speak to me, you have already made your disclosure a matter of public record.

Re:NSL delivery

[diamondmagic]

If you have to do that -- sacrifice your privacy -- hasn't the government already won?

Re:NSL delivery

[PPH]

I can give my friends a public key with which they can securely communicate with me. The government has to do so in plain text.

Re:NSL delivery

[diamondmagic]

It's a public key. Of course the government has it. Or any attacker, for that matter, all they have to do is look at any of your encrypted messages.

Re:NSL delivery

[PPH]

But if the sender isn't whitelisted, it gets decrypted in the /pub folder. Disabling this function triggers the net warrant canary.

What happens if you ignore the government?

[TheRealLifeboy]

As a non-US resident, I'd like to know what would happen if a business owner were to simply publish the secret request, ignoring the gag order? Surely this is a great instance for civil disobedience?