Quite.
- WJR ๐๐๐ On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > Because it was easy to trust the ostensibly stated reasons for why such a > project existed. > > The manner in which it was abandoned, however, does not engender any trust. > > > > > > > *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> > *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for > the SMB marketโฆ* > > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Steven Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> TrueCrypt: A project maintained by anonymous people that you trust... >> because. Not sure why people can't just trust that these same anonymous >> people posted what they wanted and walked away. >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:00:26 -0500 >> >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Hmmm.... TrueCrypt >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Agreed. I should probably have been more verbose than my "Maybe?" but I >> was in the midst of a home repair project. ;) >> >> >> - WJR >> >> [image: See-no-evil monkey][image: Hear-no-evil monkey][image: >> Speak-no-evil monkey] >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >
