News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report. Parent comment

Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by Bartweiss on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @03:08PM (#11996582)
Presumably not. But it is illegal for you to say "I have received one National Security Order this year".

Hence warrant canaries: they basically consist of creating a strong expectation of a (permitted) negative statement, such that its absence will be noticed. So far it's believed that you can't be compelled to maintain a no-longer-accurate canary against your will.

edit: Wait, I see what you're referring to. [citation needed], because as far as I know warrant canaries remain legal.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by froh42 on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @03:46PM (#11996916)
Holy shit. People in the land of the free discussing what they are legally allowed to say. Such tricks sound like stories from Soviet Russia that still linger around.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by lettergram on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @04:23PM (#11997222)
"only for national security" just like Russia
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by 86646 on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @11:19PM (#11999282)
In United States of America, government owns you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by paulddraper on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @10:28AM (#12001814)
People have been discussing that in the USA since its inception.
[ Parent | on HN ]