<pie___>
"Hm, given the new aussie laws (they can now compel companies operating there to backdoor something, and all individuals involved cannot speak about it or they will be jailed 10 years), maybe browsers should drop all aussie CAs"
<pie___>
cant backdoor something in the US? get one of your five eyes allies to pass backdoor laws? :P
<pie___>
(australia is five eyes right?)
* pie___
removes tinfoil
<pie___>
without tinfoul: australia...pls
<ckauhaus>
I'm not even sure if comparable laws don't exist in the US
<gchristensen>
to me, warrant canaries have always felt like the digital equipment of "are you a cop? you have to tell me if you're a cop"
<ekleog>
“That said, case law specific to the United States would render the covert continuance of warrant canaries subject to constitutionality challenges. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard rule the Free Speech Clause prohibits compelling someone to speak against one's wishes;” from wikipedia
<gchristensen>
maybe?
<ekleog>
then… legal matters being legal matters
<gchristensen>
I wouldn't worry too much about what the constitution says, given the secret courts have been "subject to constitutionality challenges"
<gchristensen>
best bet is to assume warrant canaries being issued is not a confirmation of not having one, while interpret a stopped canary is a confirmation of having received one
<ekleog>
indeed
<ekleog>
and anyway warrant canaries can continue being issued if the issuing key has been compromised, so…
<andi->
I also never felt much better with those canaries.. At least not since they are well known methods. It is kinda hard to define an action that ca not be executed when uder a NSL (or similar).
pietranera has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<pie___>
ekleog, do CAs even use those
<gchristensen>
they have CT logs which are probably better
<pie___>
ah <ekleog> (now, whether CAs actually use these is another question I haven't researched)
* pie___
reading scroll
<pie___>
i tentatively agree warrant cnaaries are tenuous at best