Slashdot Mirror
Site Launches To Track Warrant Canaries
Trailrunner7 writes: In the years since Edward Snowden began putting much of the NSA's business in the street, including its reliance on the secret FISA court and National security Letters, warrant canaries have emerged as a key method for ISPs, telecoms, and other technology providers to let the public know whether they have received any secret orders. But keeping track of the various canaries scattered around the Web is difficult, so a group of legal and civil liberties organizations have come together to launch a new site to monitor the known warrant canaries.
The Canary Watch site is the work of the EFF, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and NYU's Technology Law and Policy Center and it works on a simple concept. The site maintains a list of all of the known warrant canaries and periodically checks each organization's site to see whether the canary is still there and then lists any changes to the status. Right now, Canary Watch lists 11 organizations, including Lookout, Pinterest, Reddit, and Tumblr.
"Canarywatch lists the warrant canaries we know about, tracks changes or disappearances of those canaries, and allows users to submit canaries not listed on the site. For people with interest in a particular canary, the site will show any changes we know about," Nadia Kayyali of the EFF said in a blog post.
The Canary Watch site is the work of the EFF, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and NYU's Technology Law and Policy Center and it works on a simple concept. The site maintains a list of all of the known warrant canaries and periodically checks each organization's site to see whether the canary is still there and then lists any changes to the status. Right now, Canary Watch lists 11 organizations, including Lookout, Pinterest, Reddit, and Tumblr.
"Canarywatch lists the warrant canaries we know about, tracks changes or disappearances of those canaries, and allows users to submit canaries not listed on the site. For people with interest in a particular canary, the site will show any changes we know about," Nadia Kayyali of the EFF said in a blog post.
What do people do when these canaries die? Are people expected to stop using these services when the canary dies? Is it an early warning to people who may have been the subject of a secret warrant? Is this supposed to get the masses angry/raise awareness to hopefully bring change?
I'm not trying to make an argument here, I'm legitimately confused as to the practical use of this tool outside an academic/theoretical scenario. What is the goal here?
Posting it just confirms that you received it.
Tear it up and shred it, it is just a letter that has no power.
"no approval from a judge is required for the FBI to issue an NSL."
That means it is worthless, when a court decides to issue an order for something, then I'll care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
I'm well aware that most large companies just comply, they don't care... I do, I consider NSLs to be unconstitutional, get a judge to issue a warrant and I'll be willing to comply.
I haven't been served any court order. I haven't been ordered to not tell you that. It's pretty clear that I can't currently be in violation of an order that does not exist. Therefore, publishing a canary (prior to any court order) isn't illegal, the reasoning goes.
Suppose later I do receive an NSL or court order. Can the government legitimately force me to lie and publish statements saying I haven't? Is there any law that gives the executive branch the authority to order us to lie? If so, is that law repugnant to the first amendment and therefore void? Those are two open questions, questiond that Twitter and the Obama administration are litigating right now. Twitter says the first amendment gives them the right to say they have not received any NSLs. The Obama administration says they have the right to prevent Twitter from saying that.
Yes they do, and if they came in guns drawn, I of course would offer no resistance.
I would then call my lawyer. They would have to charge me with something in front of a judge, at which point they are going to have a hard time explaining why I'm there since I didn't actually do anything.
Now if the judge wants to issue a warrant for the information the FBI is asking for, then of course I would comply. The judge can also order me to not reveal anything about the case for security reasons, and I can respect that too. The key part is the judge is doing the ordering, not the FBI.
My issue is with the FBI just deciding they can ask for anything they want without a warrant.
While I don't care to get into details for obvious reasons, I can tell you that they can be compelled to get a warrant. All I'll say is that I've been served before, I've had the FBI standing in my office and I complied because there was a warrant issued by a judge.
And that is how it is supposed to happen.
---
Side note, while it is true the FBI can charge you with a crime for ignoring a NSL, that charge isn't secret... let me just say that when told politely that you'll comply with a warrant, they can get one pretty quickly (less than 24 hours in the above case) so it really isn't asking that much of them.
You seem to be unaware that Federal agency regulations are enforceable long before a situation can be brought before any court. The agencies have their own "courts" as defined by agency law, with their own means of encouraging cooperation. Such as confiscation of property, like all your computers and hard drives. And your cars. And your house. And your passport. Oh, and freezing your bank accounts.
It is all done according to their regulations, generally. The agencies are the ones who take the general guidelines given to them by directives of the Executive branch and/or laws of the Legislative branch and work them up into whatever regulations the agencies think would be most effective. That always means self-serving, to some extent. If you will notice, there is no mention in any of this about being innocent until proven guilty-- this is not court law, this is agency regulation.
It is a crappy system. It can be badly abused: J. Edgar Hoover. There needs to be reform. But this is so integral to the standing government-- all those agencies and bureaucrats who are unaffected by elections-- that reform is not going to happen anytime soon, and possibly not without bloodshed. And by the way, I'm a hippy leftest libtard, not a gun rights freak or anything like that.
Will
Posting it just confirms that you received it.
Tear it up and shred it, it is just a letter that has no power.
I consider NSLs to be unconstitutional
There is a quote from H.P. Lovecraft that is relevant here: "Do not call up what you can't put down."
Do nothing until you talk to a lawyer.
Talk to a lawyer whose only loyalty is to his client --- you --- and not the advocate for the EFF.
The FBI would likely explain that the secret judge had already secretly signed a secret warrant in the secret court, sorry we can't show you but pinky swear it exists. That's the sort of rule of law we have these days, sadly.
To which I would, very politely reply, "that might be true, I'm not a lawyer and honestly don't know. I'll have to consult with my lawyer and get back to you. Rest assured it is my intention to comply with the law, but I need to know what the law is first and my lawyer is the professional who advises me of that"
I would also politely suggest that if they would like a quicker response, bring me a normal warrant signed by a judge and they'll get instant service.
---
I fully understand the attitude of many police officers and federal agents, they think walking into a business and flashing their badge gets them access, and often it probably does. Some people probably comply out of a sense of being a patriot, or just to get them out of their office.
On the other hand, I don't hand out business information to anyone who just walks into the door, at least not without a court order.
---
May I say... the whole idea of dealing with anyone from the government, be police or FBI, is to show respect for their position and for the law, I find that goes a long way towards having friendly conversations. There is no room for "tough guy" talk, they'll win that one...
To which I would, very politely reply, "that might be true, I'm not a lawyer and honestly don't know. I'll have to consult with my lawyer and get back to you. Rest assured it is my intention to comply with the law, but I need to know what the law is first and my lawyer is the professional who advises me of that"
To which they would likely respond by putting you in a jail cell until such time as you were able to consult your lawyer and then proceed with the search with or without your help. Probably would charge you with obstruction of justice at a minimum.
On the other hand, I don't hand out business information to anyone who just walks into the door, at least not without a court order.
Laudable but not necessarily possible.
May I say... the whole idea of dealing with anyone from the government, be police or FBI, is to show respect for their position and for the law, I find that goes a long way towards having friendly conversations.
You're presuming the government representative will be friendly in return. They might but there are countless examples of them being anything but friendly.