Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pteehan 3431 days ago
I've been a happy customer for years. The contact is info@rsync.net - it's on the pricing page. I've emailed support a few times and they answer very promptly.

Rsync.net has been around forever - like 15 years. They predate the concept of 'cloud'. They were the first to use a 'warrant canary', in 2006. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary)
2 comments
mhw 3431 days ago
They are also regulars here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rsync and (for example) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13277835
link
rtpg 3431 days ago
RE the warrant canary: all legal analysis I've seen points to the canary being functionally useless. A court would throw out the defense immediately, removing a canary pointing out that a warrant has been served is the same as tweeting that you got a warrant.

It's the minimal legal hack: completely useless in a court but massive generator of internet comments

Though it generating discussion around the warrants themselves is a good feature

link
Dylan16807 3431 days ago
It's still useful as a rhetorical tool against enforcement. If someone gets imprisoned for saying "no comment" and refusing to actively lie, that would hopefully cause an enormous outrage.
link
stavros 3431 days ago
You don't "remove" a canary, you just stop updating it. The intent being that they can't force you to keep updating it.
link
rtpg 3431 days ago
They can't force you. Just like they can't force you to not tweet.

They can sure sue the hell out of you after you stop updating though.

link
SahAssar 3431 days ago
The idea is that forced speech is different than free speech. That means that someone can force you to not say something, but not force you to say something.
link
rtpg 3431 days ago
so there are two things:

- The government cannot force you to update the canary. A court cannot get you to update it, because it's forced speech to demand an update.

- You created the canary of your own accord, and are responsible for its effects. Not updating the canary is, effectively, speech.

Though, from [0]:

"Realistically, though, courts compel speech all the time. Court-ordered apologies, disclosures, and notices are not unusual. And if ever a court would be inclined to compel speech, it would be in a situation like this one, where a company intentionally set out to get around a gag order with this kind of convoluted sea-lawyering."

[0]:http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/268/is-there-any-lega...

link
type0 3431 days ago
What if they could do it instead of you, even if you use distributed signing how difficult would it be?
link