What are the legal precedents in terms of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, djaknowhatimean?"
- Rob Gehl On 09/09/2013 02:24 PM, Shava Nerad wrote: > You are awesome,clever, and full of tricks. :) Should I credit you > with this? > > yrs, > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Case Black <casebl...@gmail.com > <mailto:casebl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > There's a more subtle variant to this idea... > > Regularly state ("put up a sign") that you HAVE in fact received > an NSL...with the public understanding that it must be a lie > (there's no law against falsely making such a claim...yet!). > > When actually served with an NSL, you would now be bound by law to > remove any such notification...thereby signaling the event. > > Regards, > Case > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:24 PM, LISTS <li...@robertwgehl.org > <mailto:li...@robertwgehl.org>> wrote: > > I wonder if there's a false analogy here. Hypothetically, the > librarian's sign could fall down (maybe the wind blew it over) > whereas a > notice on a site would have to be removed via coding. There > would be > little other explanation, even in the case where one does not > affirmatively renew the "dead man's notice" (the countdown > that Doctorow > suggests in the article). Such an affirmative act might lead a > court to > believe that one has indeed informed the public about an NSL. > > - Rob Gehl > > > On 09/09/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Staples wrote: > > Presumably, if this type of approach became widely adopted, > it would be > > a useful service for an independent group to monitor the > status of these > > notices and periodically publish a report of which companies > had removed > > their notice. > > > > On 09/09/2013 12:52 PM, Scott Arciszewski wrote: > >> Forgot the URL: > >> > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Scott Arciszewski > >> <kobrasre...@gmail.com <mailto:kobrasre...@gmail.com> > <mailto:kobrasre...@gmail.com <mailto:kobrasre...@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I saw this article on The Guardian[1] and it mentioned > a librarian > >> who posted a sign that looked like this: > >> http://www.librarian.net/pics/antipat4.gif and would > remove it if > >> visited by the FBI. So a naive question comes to mind: > If I operated > >> an internet service, and I posted a thing that says "We > have not > >> received a request to spy on our users. Watch closely > for the > >> removal of this text," what legal risk would be incurred? > >> > >> If the answer is "None" or "Very little", what's > stopping people > >> from doing this? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Scott > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- > Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable > on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you > moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing > moderator at compa...@stanford.edu <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu>. > > > > -- > Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on > Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing > moderator at compa...@stanford.edu <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu>. > > > > > -- > > Shava Nerad > shav...@gmail.com <mailto:shav...@gmail.com> > >
-- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
