As far as I know (and, sure, I may not know, although if someone wanted something from the server I'm one of a few guys that could get it), we haven't received any letters. What makes me even more confident, though, is the fact that there really isn't much data to give. All we have is some ciphertexts for attachments, and messages aren't retained, even encrypted (why would they)?
We don't even log IPs or other personal information, so I'm not sure what usefulness an NSL would serve.
Anyway, this is not an official company stance, I just wanted to comment about my personal experience because I see some speculation here.
Perhaps you were just ordered to start... and plugging in that little black box from the G-Men somehow, umm, killed the canary process. Somehow.
It's more likely (and I'm just grossly speculating now) that the business weighed the relatively small chance of us being ordered to give the virtually zero amount of data we have on everyone with the chance that something will go wrong updating the canary and there will be a bunch of bad publicity again.
Keep in mind that, while one may think "you're just uploading a text file, how hard can it be", it's much more resource-intensive than that. You need multiple redundant people to make sure the world doesn't freak out because your CSO was on vacation, you need them to coordinate about updating, you need them to (crucially) know how to store the PGP keys securely, you need to keep that number low to make sure the key isn't stolen from one of them, you need good tooling to minimize the chance that there's a mistake while uploading, you need to keep the machines that host it running even after a move, the DNS entries up, monitoring to tell you if the canary is stale, etc.
It's a lot of things to get right and a lot of things that can go wrong, and the failure case for that is "your stock goes down", which is a heavy price. I think the mistake here was that there wasn't a bigger, more explicit and pre-emptive announcement (something like "we'll take the canary down in X weeks because Y"), which I think would have more successfully assuaged fears.
As soon as you said "I work for that company", you speak for them, whether you like it or not and no amount of disclaiming changes that in the mind of the reader. Additionally, you went on to explain things that only someone that works there would know, so you are explicitly speaking for the company. I'd normally recommend that an employee delete such a post, perhaps explaining the error. Given that it involves an NSL, I recommend this action more strongly than I might normally. Ask yourself, "what do I and the company have to gain from such a post, other than getting to sound like an 'insider' on HN?", and then ask "what's my worst possible outcome of posting such a thing?" Weigh the two, choose a winner.
As a warning to others, one should always ask themselves if they are posting outside their wheelhouse for an ego boost, or if it truly helpful information to others and to the company. Useful advice in the general case, IMO, but especially if you're posting in reply to "my company's in the news". I generally just shut the hell up and let the PR people handle it. Especially when you're an IC or middle-manager, 'cuz odds are that you don't have the full story.
Sorry you took it that way. Myself, I'd hate to see our desire for gossip overrule wishing to avoid folks having a difficult conversation with their manager. Maybe not in this case, but if enough people from various companies start posting out of turn on public forums when they as individuals don't know the whole story, someone's going to wake up to a bad day. It's one thing to comment on "MSFT Announces new, cool widget thingy": "I worked on that, and what a long road we've travelled!" Quite another when the headline is "Google writes down $4 billion on stupid acquisition", and "I work Google, but I only speak for myself, and I think..." Any whiff of controversy and I'd say just stay out of it.
But it's just advice, do what you like with it, including ignore it.
Perhaps more people should have difficult conversations with their managers. Or perhaps his management supports, or at least actively doesn't care about, these sorts of posts? We have no idea.
Surely as an adult, he can decide that for himself, without being subject to sermonizy advice meant to take care of his own interests for him because he's deemed incapable of doing it himself.
If they got a NSL and he lied about it, no harm will come to him. Or if he's telling the truth, obviously.
At which point we are talking civil disobedience, so worrying about whether that will land them in trouble with management is missing the point by a mile and a half.
Yea, there's a chance it will backfire. But I think that if everyone speaks openly it's much better for the community. I think one of the things you're also overlooking is the teacher effect - talking about something and teaching it provides a better insight and understanding of it to yourself. I've had great insights into things I've been working on because I discussed things surrounding them on reddit or HN. Community feedback is always valuable.
Jan 2016 - we haven't received any NSL
Feb 2016 - we haven't received any NSL concerning your account
Mar 2016 - we haven't received any NSL
Apr 2016 -
Jun 2016 - we haven't received any NSL
We split it for each location - SanDiego/Denver/Zurich/HongKong. Further, the individual location canaries can be retrieved from the actual storage array itself - that is, you can just fetch it via sftp/scp/rsync/whatever from (whatever system your account is on).
Finally, our canary is machine readable/parseable and nicely formatted. So much so that the maintainer of "Canary Watch" has told me that he wishes all warrant canaries followed our original format.
Oh By will have a similar canary soon, modeled exactly after the rsync.net warrant canary.
I just don't see a court or a judge upholding a "cute" or "technical" workaround for something like this. Haven't there been rulings in the past where these aren't valid, ie just like the article above once you do get NSL's etc you must take them down or be at risk of non compilance?
The entire basis of the warrant canary is that it's not simply asking me to stop doing something, but rather, a judge would have to order me to make false public statements. That's a tough thing to imagine - certainly on any continued basis.
Even in that situation, how will they force a swiss national to update the swiss location ? There's no jurisdiction there.
I don't see it as a technical workaround at all - it is completely non-technical. Can the government compel my speech ? Can the government compel me to make false statements ?
These are interesting questions, but I'm not at all sure the answer is not 'yes' to both of them, under the right circumstances.
The Fifth Amendment would not seem to imply (there's no criminal proceeding, and not necessarily any risk of self-incrimination) and the First Amendment, while applicable, would not necessarily prevent such a thing, in my estimation, if the circumstances were (in the government's estimation) sufficiently dire.
Alternatively, in some cases the USG could simply seize the domain name and/or server and serve up any content they wanted. See, e.g., Playpen. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/after-fbi-briefly... Though presumably they could not do this if the site or service operator were not also implicated in some form of illegal activity.
That may be true, but it would remove any moral ambiguity for me and make it easy for me to stick to my principle. If a judge orders me to make a false public statement, I'll disobey, and accept the consequences. No further justification is needed.
What sufficiently dire circumstance can there be where a government would have the right to compel speech?
I think the 13th amendment would come into play here as well.
In what scenario would the government need to compel you to make false statements?
The law is already that if you receive a NSL, then you are not allowed to divulge that you've received one. If you do, then you may be prosecuted for breaking the law.
In the scenario involving warrant canaries, the only difference between just outright saying you've received an NSL vs removing the canary is the reliance on some 'technical workaround' where the removal of information is not considered speech and/or doesn't divulge the information.
The judge is not going to tell you that you have to lie to keep the information up. But they may tell you that if you break the law, by divulging (through whatever means) that you have received an NSL, that you will receive the appropriate punishment.
Yes, that's the point: If someone tells you not to provide the information needed to draw those conclusions, there may be consequences for providing that information.
It's pretty well established that they're legally allowed to prevent me from telling people that I am in a certain state. It's not a stretch that prearranged signals fall under that.
By compelling you to lie? When and where was that "pretty well established"?
As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been tested in court. However, given that courts have been pretty silent on the idea of secret laws and compulsory silences, if it did get there, I'd be shocked that courts didn't rule this way.
Maybe that's what happened here. That would be highly dismaying.
That's a great way to end up in prison.
easy there, cowboy, this isn't East Germany just yet. I think American authorities can tell the difference between what they do and the Stasi.
As in, I actually, literally think they can tell the difference. Nobody will be ending up in prison for posting the above. Seriously. Show me a judge who'll do that.
You don't get a 4-year philosophy degree before getting a JD in American law, and structurally answer to a constitution literally containing the words "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" which is the first amendment, and which has been judged and interpreted very carefully by 9 independent justices upholding Freedom for 220 years, while sending people to prison for publishing
" Apr 2016 - "
Not happening. Not in 2016, and not in 2020. People need some perspective here.
EDIT: getting a lot of downvotes. Show me anyone who is in prison for publishing " Apr 2016 - " or any other similar warrant canary. You people need to stop throwing around "a great way to end up in prison" like that.
I'm not defending the status quo, but the suggestion that anybody is going to prison for posting a warrant canary is too much, sorry.
It diminishes the conversation and criticism around the actual status quo.
Getting on the bad side of the feds is pretty brutal.
I welcome any links you have that show otherwise.
Fine. Here is the onus on me to show this:
“Warrant canaries have never been tested in court, but no case law suggests that they are in any way illegal,” says Nate Cardozo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “In fact, existing law suggests that if a court were to examine a prohibition on warrant canaries, it would likely conclude that any such prohibition would run afoul of the First Amendment, even in the case of NSL and FISA requests.”
Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees with my referenced link, to show otherwise. Personally, I am fine with following the legal reading and guidance of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and you should be too.
The Warrant Canary article Wikipedia says, summarizing its three references: "Warrant canaries have been found to be legal by the United States Justice Department, so long as they are passive in their notifications."
Please link to any court cases to the contrary.
1, you keep attempting to make my argument a straw man escalating the emotional impact of the consequences. First it's prison, now it's a bullet in the head. No one is claiming physical violence by the government other than you.
2, It's impossible to provide. Any case that lost would be secret due to national security reasons. You assert that this hasn't happened. Fine, believe what you wish. I assert that we don't know if it has happened or not. Because, again, we'd only know if the defendant "won".
>That's a great way to end up in prison
And I asked them to have a bit of perspective and not go off the deep end. You replied saying "However, a federal court case starts at 1.5 million to defend. Not many people have that in the bank. They can make you miserable for years. This has played a role in at least one person's suicide." I disagree that that is an outcome that will happen from ceasing to publish a warrant canary.
Nobody is going to do that over someone publishing 'Apr 2016 -'. Period.
And no, it's not impossible to provide evidence of this happening. Snowden leaked the secret program of surveilling hundreds of millions of Americans. You think someone couldn't leak a blog post about getting sued in secret court for publishing a 'Apr 2016 -' warrant canary? Really?
Let's have some perspective here.
I get it, you're an absence of evidence is evidence of absence guy. That's fine. We're prohibited from actually going and looking, so i think there's no way to tell one way or the other.
I don't think you can assign zero probability to prosecution for "April 2016 -". The whole weev debacle shows there can be a perfect storm of a bad person using something that's not legally rock solid that establishes case law. Apple can afford 1.5 million. Random startup by an ex drug dealer can't. And thus we get new case law.
Anyway. It has been fun to think about.
I know it's bad form to talk about downvotes. logicallee has good points, i happen to disagree. Don't fall into the trap of downvoting them because you viscerally disagree with their opinion.
Seriously, of all the downvote abuse I've seen on HN, I think this is the worst. It's because of stuff like this that I think downvoting should be abolished. Stuff that breaks the rules should be flagged, and false flaggers should lose the privilege, and everything else should stand or fall on its own merit, according to the reader's judgment.
I miss the old (old) Slashdot meta-moderation system. If someone moderated a comment "Troll" merely because they disagreed with it, a meta-moderator (chosen at random from accounts with good karma) could fix it, anonymously. And if an account abused moderation, they could simply lose the privilege. And, of course, participants in a conversation couldn't moderate (still the case, I think). I still don't understand why Slashdot dumped that system, because it's the best I've ever seen anywhere on the Internet.
Any lawyers in the house?
* Edited slightly for clarity.
I wonder if that extends to witnesses not charged with a crime in some way. Or can you be denied counsel of your choice under questioning?!
I do agree that the gag order would extend to any lawyer you contacted after the public bidding process concluded.
There is no clever loophole here, it's a very simple order. The law says "no [recipient] shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709
Here the definition of "disclose" is "whatever convoluted process you can think of".
Reading further, it does say you can talk to an attorney, but that doesn't mean you can make a Craigslist post asking for lawyers with experience in the Patriot Act.
Further, it seems that Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations.
I do think that if one is charged or restrained that the process might work. Of course, that's a pretty big escalation!
It seems like you're trying to hack in a domain that can't really be hacked, because it's not even very well defined. The spirit of the law is clear, I can't see any reason a judge would come down on your side of this. Prohibiting a bidding process does not restrict any of your rights.
> Afterwards, Levison wrote that after being contacted by the FBI, he was subpoenaed to appear in federal court, and was forced to appear without legal representation because it was served on such short notice; in addition, as a third party, he had no right to representation, and was not allowed to ask anyone who was not an attorney to help find him one.
I just don't think it makes sense to look for a loophole here. That's not really how the legal system works, especially in these kinds of national security cases. If you make some conscious decision at some point that ends up informing people of a NSL, that's disclosure. There's no way around it. Setting up a system beforehand probably makes things worse, since you're proving that you fully understand the purpose of your actions and the spirit of the law.
I particularly like the above structure because it separates the hiring of the firm from the disclosure of the NSL to the firm. In fact, you might choose to never actually disclose the NSL to the hired firm! Since the firm doesn't necessarily know the reason they're being engaged, they're not making a disclosure either.
I imagine an organization like the EFF could make it a policy to publicly disclose when they've been hired or terminated by a client.
I find it all very interesting...
I've worked at EFF for a long time and I don't believe EFF could adopt such a policy as a matter of prudence -- or legal ethics. I can tell you that there are many reasons that lawyers will regard the existence of conversations, client intake, consultations, and representation relationships as confidential. In fact, they see that as an important principle of legal ethics.
You can see some discussions of the confidentiality of the fact of legal representation as a matter of legal ethics at
Many times, EFF has to talk to clients and prospective clients about matters that, for a variety of reasons, it's not EFF's place to make public. Just as a start, it's important that people feel comfortable talking to our lawyers when they have questions about their rights in a particular situation, whether or not we end up going to court for that person, and knowing that the matter won't end up in the press or be revealed to other parties as a result of those conversations. Lawyers can also become subject to protective orders issued by courts specifically instructing them not to reveal information about a case.
Legal matters are sometimes embarrassing. Many people who've been sued, arrested, indicted, investigated, subpoenaed, or who anticipate a possibility that one of those things may happen, aren't necessarily keen to draw any further attention to the situation. Often, people involved in legal issues are quite anxious and distressed about what's happened to them. Sometimes people ask lawyers for help dealing with other people's improper disclosure of personal, private information, and naturally don't want their lawyers to draw more public attention to what's happened.
And people who are considering filing a lawsuit, giving information to a journalist, launching a new product, introducing or changing a corporate policy, or responding in some way to a government request, among other things, may have various acknowledged and alleged duties and responsibilities to other people. Announcing or implying that a particular legal case, issue, or situation exists or that a person is taking legal advice on a certain matter could have significant repercussions. It could lead to claims that someone has breached a duty of confidentiality, or it could damage personal or business relationships.
This isn't an exhaustive list of reasons that lawyers will keep confidential the fact of representation or the fact that a prospective client has sought legal advice (whether or not the lawyer ends up representing that client on an ongoing basis), but hopefully it helps to illustrate that this is something that lawyers take seriously as an ethical matter.
"We, corporation X, hereby declare as a matter of public record that our counsel of choice in any criminal proceeding pertaining to a NSL is the EFF. This notice constitutes prior informed consent to any advertisement featuring us as a client of the EFF should we chose to retain them."
Actually, this is an interesting startup idea - warrant canary as a service, with an API.
There's some point at which a court will decide that you aren't complying, and stepping over that point is bad for your business. Since that point is very fuzzy, it's a dangerous thing to play around with.
It would be fantastic to get more granular, at the account-level. That would be a cool differentiator for these hardcore privacy/security-oriented companies.
Canaries aren't challenged currently partially because they give out so little information that it's really not worth the governments time to go after people. What the NSL gag really aims to prevent is to keep the people targeted by the NSLs from knowing that they're under investigation. If a company started doing canaries that applied down to a single person they'd be sued the first time they stopped sending one after getting a letter.
Also I'm not entirely sure that even if a judge found that an NSL can't compel you to send a zombie canary that it follows that the company can't be fined or sanctioned for breaking the gag order.
Not that it's been tested in (non-secret) court.
At the very least it'd be a massively expensive test case and the companies that have the money to pay for that have too much to lose on a case that isn't solid. It'll come down to the very technical legal question of action vs inaction that would probably wind up in the supreme court.
Like say, "business reasons".
But I don't believe warrant canaries "actually work" in practice.
The key with warrant canaries is that they aren't removing a line from something previously published, but failing to publish an update to to it.
However, that doesn't mean users haven't changed their behaviour in response to warrant canaries.
It's just not a lot of people, and it isn't clear we want it to be that way either. We don't want there to be a disincentive for companies creating them.
EDIT: maybe the downvoters could respond with how I'm wrong?
I would treat the removal of a canary as I would a fire alarm. Sure, it's possible that it's a business decision, just like it's possible that the fire alarm is a false alarm. But I'd rather make the assumption that is most likely to protect me.
Ok now what?
I assume you are talking about the U.S. only ?
There are many other countries in the world, where gag-orders are not legally possible, or not as common as in the U.S. I would say warrant canaries are still useful there.
"However other non-US based encrypted comms companies, such as Germany’s Tutanota, do continue to maintain a warrant canary for transparency and good practice purposes, despite not being subject to legal gag orders in the country where they are based."
Interesting choice of words.
We need to crash the company in order to give these guys plausible deniability when they do not cooperate. The company will die, but another will be created. Their freedom is on the line.
Abandon ship, citizens. Your Bill of Rights commands you.
That is roughly how it works, self selection. The SF groups that, to put it charitably, operate under legally ambiguous circumstances are people who know each other really well, and they only invite in those who are a known quantity. There isn't any kind of laboratory-prisoner-execution/choose-the-red-pill sort of test, the evaluation occurs continuously in the daily performance of one's duties.
SEAL teams are, relatively speaking, high profile SF - and therefor much less likely to be tasked with strictly illegal and morally objectionable missions. I have a lot more trust in someone who has SEAL team affiliation towards the end of their military service. They've walked the hall and stopped opening doors pretty early on, so they're a well measured quantity.
Also, it is my experience that veterans with combat action ribbons are far less likely to mindlessly appeal to state authority or be swayed by utilitarian justifications. Of the dozen guys I've kept in touch with, most are libertarians and a few are anarchists. I guess seeing the ugliest side of the state will flip a switch :)
I know that some would say no. I don't know how to tell ahead of time. It's a hard, general problem that's all probabilities and personality. Yet, with them, it's even harder.
That is how you end up with a spectrum of SF groups, where some are tasked with difficult but clearly whitehat missions (the bulk of well known SF), illegal but debatably moral grayhat (some known SF but mostly units operating under cover designations), and finally the blackhats that rise to Hollywood level evil (basically Apocalypse Now with no paperwork). So for a late career SEAL the probabilities are pretty good for someone to land between lawful-good and neutral-good. Those are infinitely better odds than what you'd get with some random businessman.
I'd probably share your concern if the military was full of utilitarian statists, but strangely enough it is the direct opposite... well, except for flag officers - they can get a little kooky.
You're implying the Old Boy network effect doesn't exist. Whereas you discuss it in other posts. This is a concern to me even if I accept the arguments about what their views are likely to be on average walking out of the SF community. When the effect applies, they're often working for each other or previous groups as much as the current one.
Kind of, but not really. One is monolithic and the other is stratified in such a way that loyalty does not transfer to the superstructure. Consider the relationship between the US Navy and Red Cell - a perfect, and largely public, example of the compartmentalization and transferability of loyalty.
> ...or previous groups as much as the current one.
And since the order of potential group membership and level of potential shadiness is so well defined - that is a pro rather than con when the last group to which one was a member can be determined.
Regarding calling shots, yeah who knows. Just reinforces worries in this space though. Uncertainty that is.
The canary is gone. They have received an NSL. If we don't assume this, then what the fuck was the point of the canary in the first place?
It seems very unlikely, given the pervasiveness of NSLs that all orgs still using canaries have never received an NSL. Has anyone collected a list of all the companies with canaries?
1) They're telling the truth, didn't get any warrants, and (nearly beyond belief!) decided to retire their warrant canary with a completely silly and unfounded justification, leading clueful observers to believe they're incompetent fools.
2) They're lying on their own recognizance and are deliberately collaborating with some three-letter agency to compromise their users' privacy, contrary to the very justification for their company's existence and betraying their customers' trust.
So. Fools or traitors. Shall we flip a coin?
Either way, if you care enough about your privacy to buy a Blackphone in the first place, time to remove the battery and toss it in the bin.
They are ahead on app-specific permission denials, but they have hardly any sense of decent QA for their SilentOS.
Previous updates had power regressions where the phone would be dead from a full charge within 8 hours. Took 3 months for them to fix that. Most recent update no longer has a functioning headphone jack, and will forget all bluetooth paired devices on reboot. It also is crashing after 15 minutes of map usage as it seems to overheat.
Perhaps they may do better in the future, but I won't be staying with their product and services for much longer.
That said, it seems like the explicit update-system they run for their own software and the operating system would lessen the likelihood of an on-demand compromise from a state agent to an individual's device. Though it's not like the individual can do anything besides trust that the signed packages are authentic.
OT but asking because I'm genuinely curious, if your goal is to have a "secure phone," why would you be pairing it to peripherals via Bluetooth? Or maybe am I misunderstanding "secure" in this case? The marketing speak on the the Blackphone 2 site seems more about "privacy" than security.
So it might be worth checking in "Developer options" if "Force GPU Rendering" is checked. If it is, try un-checking it and seeing if it keeps your phone a little cooler.
No? Okay, I'll update the date. Canary date is updated.
Yes? Okay, see you in the after-life I guess. Canary update process dies.
Of course they can, they're protecting their nations chosen way of life, while the Stasi were oppressing citizens who dared resist the status quo. The difference is clear.
That's either some fine quality sarcasm, or I'm going to need some help understanding the difference between the two.
Didn't you just describe the same job from two different points of view (opressor vs opressed)?
I think people cling to the fiction because the alternative is too awful for them to bear. We've gone from denial to a bargaining phase, where we come up with little technicalities that might preserve our beliefs. Next will be anger, and then a polarization of how people act on their eventual acceptance.
As someone who has seriously evaluated buying a blackphone and support SC in principle, I couldn't bring myself to do it. It's not just them, they're just the most viable and so they catch all the criticism from nerds like me. I wanted a physical lens cap, hardware switches for all microphones and all radios, a removable microSD key module, an option to use the 2nd sim slot as a custom javacard crypto module, a hypervisor for android versions (which I think they have something like) a key management spec published in BAN logic, and the moon. The moon would do.
Basically, I wanted the AR-15 platform of smart phones, where the baseband processor is just the lower receiver. Said nobody who wanted to make money ever.
i am not against them, but I do think SC, wickr, whatsapp, firechat, and privacy companies like them need a narrative pivot. The tech will be valuable, but real market fit depends on popular acceptance of a state level threat model - or at least a desire to be seen as against it.
Today, it's the electronic equivalent to wearing a motorcycle club patch. Yeah, lots of military and law enforcement and regular folks are in motorcycle clubs, but it's a statement. Privacy apps today are a shibboleth with negative skewed optionality.
One of these companies could become the harley davidson of privacy platforms, (whatsapp is close) but that's the upside. An aging rebel brand torn between loyalty and relevance.
The user base for these niche, qualitative difference apps is not unlike the story of indie record labels back in the 80s. Outsider identities, alternative social networks with their own shibboleths. If anyone can figure out who ever got rich off goth, the business model for privacy tech might be within reach. For now, privacy is just an effects pedal and some shitty makeup for bland suburban consumer apps.
The warrant canary issue is a romantic misunderstanding of law, markets, and politics, and the issue is the least important thing about a company like Silent Circle.
Misunderstanding of...? If it disappears it's either 'a business decision and/or NSL or just a NSL. What's the misunderstanding? There are some people who are more relaxed about Trump proclaiming that he "hates protestors'. I am not. When someone says they hate protestors, I set warrant canaries on all my websites. This is a scary time and warrant canaries are literally the least we can do. Furthermore when someone removes a warrant canary then explains it as "a business decision" whatever the actual reason, they have told you the type of company they are; a company that removes warrant canaries.
"not related to any warrant for user data, which we have not received"
Personal attacks (which attacking someone's family is) are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't do this again.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12038978 and marked it off-topic.
Far as Constitution, soldiers all do swear it as they're told to. Some mean it, some don't. Yet, the liars that got more soldiers killed in Iraq than 9/11 are still alive and free despite all those soldiers' oaths about domestic enemies. Many soldiers continue to serve under these corrupt politicians and even hit new targets on basis of their word. More importantly here, the military and civilians working in the mass collection programs are all working hard at eliminating Constitutional freedoms in terms of 4th and 5th Amendment while watching their leaders lie under oath about it. Can count who came forward on one hand out of thousands to who knows how many. That's saying something.
The disconnect between that and you're statement is that you're ignoring that each member of the military has their own view of what doing their duty is which is usually highly biased. Most of them at least start with the one instilled in them by American culture (pro-military mostly) and military indoctrination. Guess what the military indoctrination didn't teach them? That secretive organizations in the military and intelligence sector are spying on all Americans' data feeding stuff to law enforcement and other groups that has nothing to do with terrorism despite what the law said about that. That they need to oppose or take out those organizations. Instead, they're told to believe and do what they're told by such groups even if it supports illegal SIGINT efforts. Most do at least for the duration of their service. Many will think of fellow soldiers as an extended family of sorts afterward.
So, believing the loyalty of military personnel is to the military is a suitable default. Unless we get hundreds of new leakers soon and all kinds of soldiers storming Washington for sole purpose of getting rid of corrupt politicians that have them killed for selfish gain. I don't see either. Most of them must be on military and politicians' sides in practice. Or just apathetic, which is its own danger.
Don't take my word for it. I'm just another commenter. Use the search box at the bottom of the page to search for "author:dang shill".
Stavros Korokithakis has been on HN for as long as I can remember. Nobody deserves this kind of treatment on HN, but it's especially galling when people who have a track record of contributing here get it from people who have no such record.
Some wouldn't want you to talk to media at all. Silent Circle's employees have been very active on HN in the past regarding their work and their employer, I hope not to see similar responses to what I've seen in this thread earlier on in the future.
Sorry, slightly offtopic to the original thread.
This commenters voice could be false for all anyone knows and he could be lying to save the company's image. He's obviously biased in this case to do so if he does work at Silent Circle..
I'm appalled the "rigorous" HN would ignore the actual warrant canary and blindly trust an anonymous commenter who's account might be hacked or biased to lie about the state of affairs going on.
This guy is probably telling the truth but it serves no purpose other than to confuse the public and customers of Silent Circle to make empty statements about the on-goings within the company without an official statement from the company.