
Silent Circle canary missing declaration? - chinathrow
https://canary.silentcircle.com/?new-issue
======
jamiesonbecker
This is not difficult or even all that ambiguous. The whole point of a canary
is to confirm a negative effect by the lack of an ongoing positive action.

From the site:

 _\- a declaration that, up to that point, no warrants have been served, nor
have any searches or seizures taken place._

Any such declaration disappeared at some point. The lack of a positive
statement that the canary is valid (and everything's ok) is obviously
deliberate, since the news items are both updated and signed.

That's about as clear of an indication as possible given the circumstances.
Even this was possibly risky, even though it shouldn't be. Respect their
integrity.

~~~
pdkl95
When you take a canary down into a mine and you notice that something unusual
seems to be happening to the bird, the correct response is _not_ to spend a
lot of time trying to figure out if the bird is really dead, how the problem
started, or how we could interpret the bird's behavior.

When the canary you took into the mine suddenly looks strange, _you run_.

Maybe the canary didn't actually have a problem. Maybe it died due to natural
causes and the mine was perfectly safe. There might be reasonable explanations
for the canary's behavior that would be obvious if you took the time to
perform minimal investigation. None of that matters, because the entire
purpose of taking a canary down into a mine is to have an early warning signal
that might save your life.

We cannot know the current situation of someone who publishes a warrant
canary. What we do know that while _any_ change _might_ be a simple mistake,
it could also be an attempt to announce some sort of warning. Just like taking
the bird down into a mine, the early warning system _might not be useful_ if
you waste time arguing about it.

------
declan
The sole purpose of a warrant canary is to say something akin to: "We have
received no warrants or NSLs."

The Silent Circle warrant canary has no such statement. It says the opposite:
if "no warrants have been served," such a declaration will appear. The
declaration does not appear. The most obvious conclusion is they have been
served with some a warrant or similar compulsory legal process.

I think it's unlikely that the wording was accidentally unclear. This came up
in the HN thread in December, with <StavrosK> saying: "You're right, it looks
like the wording is a bit unclear. I'll talk to the guys to see if we can get
it updated, thanks."
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796912](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796912)

On the other hand, on January 6, 2015: “There is nothing to report via warrant
canary or otherwise because we have never been served with a warrant, subpoena
or other legal requirement to provide anything.”
[https://support.silentcircle.com/customer/portal/questions/9...](https://support.silentcircle.com/customer/portal/questions/9870810-why-
did-you-remove-the-number-of-requests-you-recieve-from-the-snoops-law-
enforcement-each-month-?b_id=4315)

It's really quite simple to get a warrant canary right and eliminate
ambiguity. Look at rsync.net's example:

 _No warrants have ever been served to rsync.net, or rsync.net principals or
employees. No searches or seizures of any kind have ever been performed on
rsync.net assets..._
[http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt](http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt)

The one we're using at [http://recent.io/](http://recent.io/) is similar, and
possibly more explicit:

 _As of [date], we have not received any legal process or demand from any
federal, state, or local government. We have received no National Security
Letters, civil subpoenas, search warrants, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act orders, grand jury subpoenas, or any other form of compulsory process._

As a community, we really need a way to keep track of status changes in
warrant canaries. I wonder if
[https://canarywatch.org/](https://canarywatch.org/) keeps archived copies.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
this is somewhat pointless if:

[...] it does not prevent them from using force to coerce us to produce false
declarations [...]

so if the declaration is present it's still not guaranteed that no gag order
was issued. Looks to me like a desperate attempt to patch a broken system (US
policy/law). You could even go that far to assume that it is only a marketing
stunt as such statements have no other value otherwise.

~~~
declan
You are correct that U.S. policy is in some ways broken, but incorrect in
assuming that warrant canaries serve no purpose or firms can be compelled to
lie. The far better arguments are that such an order would be unconstitutional
-- look at the NSL 1A litigation for a good parallel.

That's why CanaryWatch.org is run by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society, NYU's Technology Law & Policy Clinic,
and the Calyx Institute. I moderated an event at HOPE X last year with Nick
from Calyx (and Ladar from LavaBit) and they have spent quite a bit of time
thinking through this.

------
ComputerGuru
Sorry, this makes no sense.

Here's the archive from December 2014:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20141226030217/https://canary.sil...](http://web.archive.org/web/20141226030217/https://canary.silentcircle.com)

I don't see the problem.

~~~
IvyMike
I'd like to see earlier versions of the canary. Because December 2014 is when
they (supposedly accidentally) stopped updating their canary for a bit.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796307](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796307)

(Also: hey CanaryWatch peeps,
[https://canarywatch.org/](https://canarywatch.org/), I know you're brand new
and the archive would not have gone back far enough, but note that keeping a
database of earlier canaries would be a very neat feature, for this exact
situation.)

~~~
jessaustin
That's a good suggestion, but if canarywatch provides too much information,
could it also be vulnerable to NSLs etc.? (A cursory review of the site did
not uncover a canary, but I could be overlooking something. Still, if any site
would make this obvious...)

------
comex
According to the Wayback Machine, it's lacked a declaration (as opposed to a
statement that it's supposed to contain a declaration) at least since December
2014, the earliest version that was archived:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20141226030217/https://canary.sil...](http://web.archive.org/web/20141226030217/https://canary.silentcircle.com)

~~~
logicallee
it would be funny if the initial publication of the canary was _itself_ the
disclosure. Like this:

[on my hackernews profile:] "I have decided to start publishing a Canary on
whether I have ever been hellbanned. The purpose of the Canary is that it can
be 'dead', i.e. I can simply fail to state something, and not saying something
surely does not put myself at risk of reprisal. Still, the fact of my not
saying something can alert you. If this comment ever FAILS to end with a
positive statement that I have not ever been hell-banned, then you can take it
as an indication that I have been. For now, I'll be keeping this Canary here,
but can remove it at any time."

------
chinathrow
The biggest takeway for me here is, that I have no chance to verify that the
canaray looked always like it looked today or if that is the intended state of
it.

~~~
logicallee
if they were really cheeky about it they would have an archive section or even
changelog "Changelog. Removed part about not ever being served. Didn't seem
necessary."

------
belovedeagle
A lot of commenters seem to be dancing around a fact which seems to me to be
obvious: Silent Circle has received a warrant. This is simple. If Silent
Circle had not received a warrant, their canary would state as much, as
promised. It does not. Ergo, Silent Circle has received a warrant. That much
is, in my mind, nearly certain. On the other hand, what follows is speculation
(IANAL):

The problems back in December in fact occurred on receipt of a warrant by
Silent Circle. The first attempt by Silent Circle of not updating their canary
was shot down by a judge. However, said judge did not go so far as to actually
order them to make a _false_ statement, as that's clearly unconstitutional (of
course, judges might act unconstitutionally, but perhaps "judge" here could be
read to mean, "the agreed compromise of the court pending appeal", etc.; it
doesn't matter one way or the other). However, the rest of the warrant canary
_is not false_ , and therefore it's conceivable that the court could feel
justified in ordering SC to update it, and the government could correctly
predict that there is value in having the canary updated even without the
declaration, since it sows confusion among those watching the canary. If that
is the case, then what we would see is a warrant canary just as it existed
before, except lacking the (now false) declaration. The updated canary, lack
of declaration, and confusion sown by that are in fact precisely what we
observe now.

The ambiguous statements by SC after December are consistent with this view.
Their legal counsel could feel that even if asked directly "have you received
a warrant", it may be necessary to lie in order to guarantee that it does not
seem like they've made a speech act stating that they have in fact received a
warrant.

If this is all the case, then I feel sorry for the SC guys, since it must be
terribly frustrating to be gagged, but to have executed _precisely as planned_
this apparently effective warrant canary strategy, and then to have everyone
else, instead of understanding what is going on, quibble over what it means
that the declaration is missing and basically claim "the warrant canary didn't
work" when _it 's working exactly the way we expected it to work_!

Luckily, assuming all this is true, presumably the people who are in positions
to really care about this sort of thing also share this understanding, and
(unlike a nobody like me) they're just smart enough to keep their mouths shut
for SC's sake, since this is a legal tightrope by any account. If the
public/the community seems to understand completely the meaning of the warrant
canary, then that would give the gov't leverage to either claim that SC should
be punished for it or, worse, to force SC to make a false speech act and put
the declaration back in.

Certainly if I ever see that declaration come back, I will assume that a US
court has done the unthinkable and ordered citizens to make a knowingly false
statement against their will.

------
pain_perdu
I don't understand what's missing. It was updated March 6th.

~~~
nandhp
The actual declaration seems to be missing. Although it does not appear to
have been there in December, either:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20141226030217/https://canary.sil...](http://web.archive.org/web/20141226030217/https://canary.silentcircle.com)

~~~
jszymborski
If it wasn't there before, it is now.

------
phreeza
Someone should build a repository of these canaries to keep track...

~~~
foodstances
[https://canarywatch.org/](https://canarywatch.org/)

~~~
runiq
How come canarywatch.org doesn't have a canary itself?

------
lol768
There's a support center question and answer here which might be related to
the missing declaration:

[https://support.silentcircle.com/customer/portal/questions/9...](https://support.silentcircle.com/customer/portal/questions/9870810-why-
did-you-remove-the-number-of-requests-you-recieve-from-the-snoops-law-
enforcement-each-month-?b_id=4315)

------
rdtsc
From the government's point of view the easiest way to handle it is to just
issue warrants every month to all the major services with canaries.

Basically make them useless in the eyes of the users. "Oh, the canary, it is
always triggired, don't pay attentiont o that".

Anyway, that is what I would do if I was them and had no morals or scruples.

------
comrade1
I have a hard time believing a warrant canary is something that can be
trusted. It seems it would be one of the first things that would be brought up
to the judge and the judge would order to continue updating the canary.

These warrant canaries seem amateurish and nothing more than theater.

~~~
jamiesonbecker
Assuming that a judge would go so far as to compel them to make a false
statement, which would be unconstitutional.

~~~
bhouston
Are you sure there is a law again making false statements to the general
public? I think police lie all the time in sting operations or as undercover
ops.

~~~
maxerickson
It's the compelling that is ostensibly unconstitutional.

