![]() So it is either that they are actively lying from their own initiative, which I find very hard to believe. 1: they are speaking truthfully, 2: they are lying because of the government or 3: they are lying out of their own accord.īased on again that EFF explainer webpage, number 2 seems very unlikely. Instead, they opted to replace it with a transparency report and noted that they had zero requests. If SpiderOak intended to let their warrant canary “die,” would this be the way to do it? Wouldn’t it be far simpler to just let the previous warrant canary expire? They cannot be compelled to falsely update the warrant canary, as we have just seen from EFF’s webpage. I point out this latter fact because I think it is incredibly relevant. So I consulted EFF’s explainer on warrant canaries and then the following seems clear (quote): “EFF believes that warrant canaries are legal, and the government should not be able to compel a lie.” A bit futher they note among others that thus far, courts have NOT upheld compelled FALSE speech ( ). While I understand the idea behind it, I just can’t see how law inforcement could draft up a legal solution that would allow a warrant canary policy but disallow everything else. Okay, so I am probably going to get flak for this, but as a current user of SpiderOak I feel like I am facing a choice: am I going to trust SpiderOak from this point onwards, or shall I abandon them?įor starters, I never thought a warrant canary policy could be useful in a real-life scenario. Maybe a bit of both with a little ‘I can tell you the truth but then I have to kill you’ thrown in just for grins. Towser: You won’t be here then, will you? Towser: May I send people in to see you after you’ve left?įirst Sgt. Towser: And then what do I do with them?įirst Sgt. Major Major Major: Tell them I’m in and ask them to wait.įirst Sgt. What do I say to people who want to come in and see you while you’re in your office? Major Major Major: Sergeant, from now on, I don’t want anyone to come in and see me while I’m in my office. Other Man:(John Cleese) I’ve told you once. Man: Is this the right room for an argument? For what it’s worth, I’m sure I’m not the only one who respects the risk SpiderOak took by using the canary. I can’t help but notice that your statement stops short of actually denying that an NSL was received. I am forced to conclude that the removal of the canary was deliberate, performing exactly the function it was supposed to, and that SpiderOak is now being compelled to act as though they have not received an National Security Letter. It’s also hard to prove a negative, i.e we haven’t received a warrant, which is the exact purpose of both a warrant canary and a transparency report. It’s disheartening that a random Reddit post can start a rumor that is repeated by reputable sources without verification. It was never removed, except for the few minutes it took to update it (as happens every six months per ). The warrant canary is still up and in place. If that’s what SpiderOak means, then say it, and say why.Īs Halter mentioned, SpiderOak has addressed this rumor already. The issue is that intercepting 3rd parties cannot get the keys. The issue is not “we don’t have the keys”. “The No Knowledge approach that SpiderOak uses means that we we don’t have the keys to decrypt the data you trust us to store for you.” is bad. ![]() The whole point of a Warrant Canary is that any change, however explained, means the worst. There is a difference between “The warrant canary is still up and in place” and “change at SpiderOak from a Warrant Canary to a Transparency Report”. “Over the weekend there has been chatter on the internet about the change at SpiderOak from a Warrant Canary to a Transparency Report.” You say “The warrant canary is still up and in place. Tags: cloud computing, courts, national security policy, secrecy, transparencyĪug11:21 needs to understand that language is explicit and exacting with these issues, perhaps pedantic in other situations. I have never fully trusted warrant canaries- this EFF post explains why-and this is an illustration. So either they have received a National Security Letter and now have to pretend they did not, or they completely misunderstood what a warrant canary is and how it works. And a change is the functional equivalent-that’s how they work. That’s obviously false, because it did die. To have it simply disappear is what we would expect if SpiderOak were being forced to comply with a US government request for personal data.)ĮDITED TO ADD (8/9): SpiderOak has posted an explanation claiming that the warrant canary did not die-it just changed. (Presumably, if SpiderOak wanted to replace the warrant canary with a transparency report, they would have written something explaining their decision. I have never quite trusted the idea of a warrant canary. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |