Lying about it opens you up to potential litigation and being exposed through discovery. It makes less sense to outwardly lie to paying customers rather than simply lie by omission.
The EFF wants a world where this kind of BS, and consequent litigation, is a thing of the past. If there's water running down their face, it's tears, not drool. We deserve a better world.
You get there by either getting congress to pass laws or by setting legal precedent in the court. That’s the goal of the legal arm. Not to fight every bullshit civil liberties case, but to fight the last one that doesn’t get thrown out in court.
If you don’t think they look forward to those cases, I think you’re the one who has read them wrong, not me.
There should probably be case law before anyone actually believes in warrant canaries.
'If it's illegal to advertise that you've received a court order of some kind, it's illegal to intentionally and knowingly take any action that has the effect of advertising the receipt of that order. A judge can't force you to do anything, but every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a "canary" you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something. If any lawyers have a different legal interpretation, I'd love to hear it.' --Moxie Marlinspike
Why would someone have to lie? They can just say "We can't comment on that" without providing an answer. And then customers can go "sounds pretty suspicious, time to switch VPN services".
I'd hire a lawyer that knows how to deal with them and knows how to say no comment.
I've always felt that the warrant canary is a nerd's gotcha designed to get out of a sketchy legal process (NSLs) and that judges would be very unsympathetic. But IANAL.
At least from my perspective, it is not just a "gotcha" problem or whatever feelings it conjures up in a judge's mind.
When a company, who already has a canary in place, receives this kind of warrants, what _can_ the company practically do to comply with non-disclosure? It seems that lying is now the only option left, if the company must explicitly post a "no, we didn't receive such a warrant".
> This is what "warrant canaries" are for. dont use anyone who doesnt have one
What if they have one like this quarterly canary at privacy-forward "write.as" last updated 9 months ago?
It should be noted with significance if this message
fails to be updated on a quarterly basis.
2023-01-05 21:06:06 UTC
No warrants have ever been served to Write.as, or
Write.as principals or employees.