canary

The reason I am confident in the rsync canary is that you are so proud of it.

So what about this vanishing of the warrant canary?

You need to be able to send canary requests through that trace through your whole infrastructure.

My not-a-lawyer read on the whole warrant canary thing is that it would never fly in front of a judge.

> My not-a-lawyer read on the whole warrant canary thing is that it would never fly in front of a judge.

Randomly canary a small fraction of your traffic.

Well, the canary you put in a coal mine isn't very expensive either, but it ought to tell you something...

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect that they'd simply order you to keep updating the canary.

So-called professional courtesy is the canary in the coal mine.

Perhaps as the article suggests this is the canary in the coal mine that portends the imminent downfall of imgur as a non spammy image host.

" The implementation is clearly suboptimal, though - you want to control the canary domain.

Personally, I've decided to take the position that password security is the "canary in the coalmine" of a business's awareness about security concerns.

In other words, anyone with two brain cells can see that, if there has in fact been a 215 order by the time the next report rolls around, then deliberately removing the warrant canary language is tantamount to revealing the order's existence, which is illegal.

Is there public case history where an individual or corporation has been forced to publicly state untruth or false facts for the sake of national security or other state need?With the warrant canary meme spreading, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Section 215 warrants include warrant canary clauses.

Is there any reason why a company could not apply the same concept of a warrant canary on a user-by-user basis?Imagine seeing a message every time you log into your Gmail account informing you that Google has never been compelled to surrender your private data to a law enforcement agency.