Most of the references I've seen suggest that it's similar to a warrant canary in that desired effect is that the maintainers are pointing to a NSL with actions that make indicate they are under duress and prohibited from explicitly stating such.
But I agree, it's all speculation save for a couple of folks who seem to be saying "yup, this is a TLA, but I can't tell you how I know..." -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Scott > Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Hmmm.... TrueCrypt > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:46 PM, William Robbins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Maybe? > > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/06/01/1922248/the-sudden-policy-chang > > e-in-truecrypt-explained > > Slashdot is linking to a blog that's quoting Twitter posts that appear to be > incoherent speculation. (I think. It's hard to tell with > Twitter.) > > Anyway, as I read it, the speculation is that this is a warrant canary. > Except... > it can't be. > > The issue arises because the gov't can serve you with a warrant or other > legal instrument that includes a gag order preventing you from even talking > about it. > > A "warrant canary" is some thing you preemptively maintain as a > countermeasure to such. You announce you're maintaining this canary. > Then, if you get served, you stop maintaining the canary. The classic example > is a daily announcement "We haven't received a warrant". The day you don't > post that, everyone knows you just got served.[1] > > Suddenly yanking the project, without explanation or previously established > meaning, is not a warrant canary. It might be what happens when you don't > *have* a warrant canary, but that's the exact opposite meaning of the term. > > So... <shrug> > > -- Ben > > [1] The theory is, the gov't can prevent you from saying "I've been served > with a warrant", but can't force you to speak untruth. Whether that actually > works in reality, I have no idea. >
