Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Naive Question

Case Black caseblack at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 12:40:00 PDT 2013


There's a more subtle variant to this idea...

Regularly state ("put up a sign") that you HAVE in fact received an
NSL...with the public understanding that it must be a lie (there's no law
against falsely making such a claim...yet!).

When actually served with an NSL, you would now be bound by law to remove
any such notification...thereby signaling the event.

Regards,
Case


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:24 PM, LISTS <lists at robertwgehl.org> wrote:

> I wonder if there's a false analogy here. Hypothetically, the
> librarian's sign could fall down (maybe the wind blew it over) whereas a
> notice on a site would have to be removed via coding. There would be
> little other explanation, even in the case where one does not
> affirmatively renew the "dead man's notice" (the countdown that Doctorow
> suggests in the article). Such an affirmative act might lead a court to
> believe that one has indeed informed the public about an NSL.
>
> - Rob Gehl
>
>
> On 09/09/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Staples wrote:
> > Presumably, if this type of approach became widely adopted, it would be
> > a useful service for an independent group to monitor the status of these
> > notices and periodically publish a report of which companies had removed
> > their notice.
> >
> > On 09/09/2013 12:52 PM, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
> >> Forgot the URL:
> >>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Scott Arciszewski
> >> <kobrasrealm at gmail.com <mailto:kobrasrealm at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hello,
> >>
> >>     I saw this article on The Guardian[1] and it mentioned a librarian
> >>     who posted a sign that looked like this:
> >>     http://www.librarian.net/pics/antipat4.gif and would remove it if
> >>     visited by the FBI. So a naive question comes to mind: If I operated
> >>     an internet service, and I posted a thing that says "We have not
> >>     received a request to spy on our users. Watch closely for the
> >>     removal of this text," what legal risk would be incurred?
> >>
> >>     If the answer is "None" or "Very little", what's stopping people
> >>     from doing this?
> >>
> >>     Thanks,
> >>     Scott
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google.
> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130909/1dbfa08c/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list