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

Shava Nerad shava23 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 13:24:20 PDT 2013


You are awesome,clever, and full of tricks. :)  Should I credit you with
this?

yrs,


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Case Black <caseblack at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 

Shava Nerad
shava23 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130909/8b61df46/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list