Sean Lynch wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Rayzer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > Here and there someone pokes their illogical head up and says > "Warrant > > canaries can't work" or "warrant canaries will get you introuble > with > > the law" or some variation on the theme. It boggles me fookin marnd, > > it do. Perhaps this story can help massage some of those mental > > tensions... > > From what I've read the legal department at reddit isn't really sure > whether it violated the law by killing it's canary. > > > Do we know for sure that Reddit deleted the canary because something > happened that killed the canary, rather than because their legal > department decided that the canary was possibly not legal in the first > place? One would think they would simply say that's why they did it if > that were the case, but the fact that they didn't say that is the only > evidence I'm aware of that it's NOT because they decided it was illegal.
That's a good question and would make an interesting (albeit one-time-only) defense against being accused of tipping peeps by killing their canary. -- RR "Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers ... And neutralize them, neutralize them, neutralize them"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
