[Support-team] warrant canaries controversy?

[Steve Revilak]

This exchange was the first I'd heard about Riseup's warrant canary,
and my knowledge of the situation is limited to what's been said
during this discussion.

I think there are two ways to interpret failure to update a warrant
canary: (1) the organization hosting the canary received an order
such that updating the warrant canary would make the statement untrue,
or (2) they never bothered to update the warrant canary.

If (2) seems improbable, then (1) is probably true.  At that point,
the warrant canary has done it's job and and there's not much any of
us can do about it.

A friend of mine (former Berkman center lawyer) once told me that
there are plenty of ways the government can punish you what you say.
But the government cannot force you to lie on their behalf.  That's
actually good for warrant canaries; the FBI can't (say) serve you with
an NSL, and then require you to update a canary.

It sounds like we don't entirely know what's going on.  That's fine.
We just wait and see.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/support-team/attachments/20161125/a25120cf/attachment-0001.sig>