GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report

Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by anonicode on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @05:00PM (#11997533)

> Edit: Nevermind. The document they cite[0] clears it up.

That didn't exactly clear it up for me. Would you mind saying how that clears it up? Does it really mean 1-249 after all?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by ademarre on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @07:40PM (#11998453)

I still don't grok the dos and don'ts of NSLs and canaries, but that document establishes the origin of the range 0–249, which is expressly permitted. See also: https://canarywatch.org/faq.html

I suspect they would not be using the 0–249 band if they were not gagged by a previous order. My uninformed interpretation is that they have received an NSL or FISA order, but not necessarily in 2015. So the 2015 number might be zero after all.

Maybe someone more informed could confirm or debunk this interpretation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by espadrine on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @05:19PM (#11997672)

It means in bands of 1000 starting with 0-999.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by chc on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @06:37PM (#11998131)

Or bands of 250 if you classify things a different way. It offers both options.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub's 2015 Transparency Report by euyyn on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @06:40PM (#11998148)

Yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]