Hang on there Cory, I’ve heard around the way that you’re a anti-apple villain who never writes anything positive about apple. Who are you and what have you done with the real Cory?
1 Like
As several security researchers have pointed out, Apple is involved with PRISM (under 702) so this is just a PR move.
4 Likes
Show’s his desperation to find a company that is doing anything even in appearance only that could get slammed to hell and back to try fighting.
Because Microsoft and even Google aren’t… which makes me sad because I’m a google fanboy.
Plus, you might simply say that it was an honest mistake and that you simply forgot to show the canary. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that it had been strangled at the same time.
And of course none of us know about the applications of section 998343566 which were applied before any of this stuff began, since we didn’t think to plant that canary in time.
It’ll work. Whatever else, if the American people perceive the hands of a new Nixon playing with their rights, they will start voting the perps off centre stage.
Votes = power, and what we all want ultimately is Sex/Money/Power. We’re simple creatures.
Revisions to the Patriot Act are not secret.
There is something very “First law of robotics” about this.
I’m sure that the lawyers will be able to come up with an attempt to nail that dead parrot back up on its perch…
* A company may not reveal the receipt of a secret data request or, through inaction or exclusion, allow the revelation of the receipt of a secret data request.
Except when they come in the form of Executive Orders.
A warrant canary isn’t really a canary either. It’s more like a warrant dead man switch. Canaries were used in mines to provide advance notice of bad air. Whereas, a dead man switch is a device which sounds an alarm unless it is activated.
1 Like
The major problem with canaries is that it requires you to trust the company providing the canary. Maybe it wouldn’t legally hold up in court if the NSA ‘kindly requested’ you continue putting up, if you didn’t want certain other unpleasant things to happen - but would a major company be willing to take that risk? Do you TRUST them to take that risk, when taking that risk GUARANTEES they’ll end up worse off, since the only ‘benefit’ is people knowing they’ve been compromised? And unless they “knew” about it they wouldn’t even be lying, and lots of people are really good at not knowing about lots of things they benefit from - there are systems in place to handle that and keep them nicely shielded.
Every single incentive of the canary system is perverse - unless you’ve got an extremely moral risk-taker on the other side of it, there is no reason whatsoever to trust these canaries, any more than we trust the various (later proven untrue) denials that many corporations make.
It is NOT dead, it’s just sleeping.
1 Like
Whaa? I was actually poking fun at all the commenters who rail on him for never saying anything positive about apple. And fwiw Google is pretty good… they were the first to start releasing transparency reports and they are now freaking pissed at the news that the NSA is playing around in their networks and so are going to be doing everything they can to make their technologies as unpackable as possible. Check this recent post from a secuirty engineer at Google: https://plus.google.com/108799184931623330498/posts/SfYy8xbDWGG
Then this one that confirms that all the internal traffic that the NSA was snooping on is now being sent encrypted to “fuck these guys”. Thanks Snowden and thanks teh googs https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn/posts/LW1DXJ2BK8k
Executive agencies almost always interpret the laws they enforce or execute, even when Congress hasn’t clearly delegated rule-making power to the agency. This interpretation is a normal part of government, and does not change what the law actually is: it’s absolutely not the case that agency interpretation has revised the Patriot Act. For example, the Wired article you link to clearly discusses the tangible records provision of the Patriot Act, which is section 215. The government interpretation of section 215 hasn’t revised the Patriot Act’s provisions such that they “are all secret now so nobody will know what section to deny until it’s to late.” If Apple had included a section 215 canary at the time the Wired article was written, that canary would have been and would remain just as effective as the one they just wrote: section 215 continues to be the tangible records provision and it has not been superseded by a secret revision of the Patriot Act.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
