That's the problem with things that last for years.... :)
- WJR 🙈🙉🙊 On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:36 AM, John Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Only if you replace it with the exact same model ;-) > > > > *John W. Cook* > > *Director of Network Operations* > > *Partnership For Strong Families* > > *5950 NW 1st Place* > > *Gainesville, Fl 32607* > > *Office (352) 244-1610 <%28352%29%20244-1610>* > > *Cell (352) 215-6944 <%28352%29%20215-6944>* > > > > *MCSE, MCP+I, MCTS, * > > *CompTIA A+, N+, Security +* > > *VSP4, VTSP4* > > *[image: MCP_SE_c] [image: MCTS] *[image: top_banner] > > > > *[image: VMLOGO_VTSP_S_Q208] [image: sales_prof_B]* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *William Robbins > *Sent:* Monday, June 2, 2014 12:34 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Hmmm.... TrueCrypt > > > > Garbage disposal. Should be easy...right? ;) > > > > - WJR > 🙈🙉🙊 > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Which project were you repairing? > > > > -sc > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *William Robbins > *Sent:* Monday, June 2, 2014 12:00 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Hmmm.... TrueCrypt > > > > Agreed. I should probably have been more verbose than my "Maybe?" but I > was in the midst of a home repair project. ;) > > > > - WJR > 🙈🙉🙊 > > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-change-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. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or > attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information > (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, > dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This > information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and > Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. > Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result > in civil and/or criminal penalties. > Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really > need to. >
