[liberationtech] Naive Question

[Shava Nerad]

Oh yes, but it's funny as hell.  There's something to be said for that in
times like this.

Mouse, meet owl.


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Case Black <caseblack at gmail.com> wrote:

> I absolutely agree with your point...cleverness alone doesn't go very far
> against ruthless adversaries.
>
> To paraphrase a prior post that's quite relevant to this discussion:
>
> "...the members of this list are uniquely qualified to influence that
> policy debate in terms of shaping both hard and soft policy in far more
> substantial ways.
>
> We can shape soft policy by expanding the selectorate willing to influence
> the political leadership to better circumscribe domestic surveillance
> capabilities. It's important to keep the focus on capabilities rather than
> intentions and assurances. And on the long range danger of having these
> surveillance databases in existence and their inevitable use to warp the
> political process in dark and dangerous ways.
>
> Hard policy is shaped by changing the technological landscape...by
> altering the very ground surveillance agencies stand on through the support
> of more and better privacy and encryption projects. It happened during the
> Crypto Wars of the 1990's and it can happen again."
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Matt Johnson <railmeat at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All of the sneaky signs, email headers and web page badges assume the
>> FBI, or whoever the adversary is are incompetent or inept.  That does
>> not see like a safe assumption to me. The only prudent approach is to
>> assume your adversary is intelligent and competent.
>>
>> My guess is that the only defense against NSL's and the like is
>> through policy. I realize that may be blasphemy on this list, but
>> there it is.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM, LISTS <lists at robertwgehl.org> wrote:
>> > What are the legal precedents in terms of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge,
>> > djaknowhatimean?"
>> >
>> > - Rob Gehl
>> >
>> >
>> > On 09/09/2013 02:24 PM, Shava Nerad wrote:
>> >
>> > You are awesome,clever, and full of tricks. :)  Should I credit you with
>> > this?
>> >
>> > yrs,
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Case Black <caseblack at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There's a more subtle variant to this idea...
>> >>
>> >> Regularly state ("put up a sign") that you HAVE in fact received an
>> >> NSL...with the public understanding that it must be a lie (there's no
>> law
>> >> against falsely making such a claim...yet!).
>> >>
>> >> When actually served with an NSL, you would now be bound by law to
>> remove
>> >> any such notification...thereby signaling the event.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Case
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:24 PM, LISTS <lists at robertwgehl.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I wonder if there's a false analogy here. Hypothetically, the
>> >>> librarian's sign could fall down (maybe the wind blew it over)
>> whereas a
>> >>> notice on a site would have to be removed via coding. There would be
>> >>> little other explanation, even in the case where one does not
>> >>> affirmatively renew the "dead man's notice" (the countdown that
>> Doctorow
>> >>> suggests in the article). Such an affirmative act might lead a court
>> to
>> >>> believe that one has indeed informed the public about an NSL.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Rob Gehl
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 09/09/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Staples wrote:
>> >>> > Presumably, if this type of approach became widely adopted, it
>> would be
>> >>> > a useful service for an independent group to monitor the status of
>> >>> > these
>> >>> > notices and periodically publish a report of which companies had
>> >>> > removed
>> >>> > their notice.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 09/09/2013 12:52 PM, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
>> >>> >> Forgot the URL:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Scott Arciszewski
>> >>> >> <kobrasrealm at gmail.com <mailto:kobrasrealm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     Hello,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     I saw this article on The Guardian[1] and it mentioned a
>> librarian
>> >>> >>     who posted a sign that looked like this:
>> >>> >>     http://www.librarian.net/pics/antipat4.gif and would remove
>> it if
>> >>> >>     visited by the FBI. So a naive question comes to mind: If I
>> >>> >> operated
>> >>> >>     an internet service, and I posted a thing that says "We have
>> not
>> >>> >>     received a request to spy on our users. Watch closely for the
>> >>> >>     removal of this text," what legal risk would be incurred?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     If the answer is "None" or "Very little", what's stopping
>> people
>> >>> >>     from doing this?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>     Thanks,
>> >>> >>     Scott
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on
>> Google.
>> >>> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
>> >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
>> Unsubscribe,
>> >>> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
>> >>> companys at stanford.edu.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on
>> Google.
>> >> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
>> >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
>> Unsubscribe,
>> >> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
>> >> companys at stanford.edu.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Shava Nerad
>> > shava23 at gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google.
>> > Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
>> Unsubscribe,
>> > change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
>> > companys at stanford.edu.
>> --
>> Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google.
>> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
>> companys at stanford.edu.
>>
>
>
> --
> Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google.
> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
>



-- 

Shava Nerad
shava23 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130909/f52fb064/attachment.html>