Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Kirino Kousaka (kirino@seal.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 13-Aug-2023 09:11:24 JST Kirino Kousaka

   in reply to

   It’s semantics in that only autists argue over tiny details, most people understand the question and answer it despite minor errors.

   You’re also only half right, a gag order specifically forbids you from speaking or discussing the order itself. Whilst removing an element from your website technically betrays this it doesn’t do so in a way that could actually be contested.

   For a gag order to prevent this it would need to specifically state that the person in question “Must not modify the warrant canary on your site to inform your users of such action.” or similar wording.

   As an example, the group Riseup is a case where a Warrant Canary was EXTREMELY effective at communicating with users. There specific implementation meant they needed to update it to inform users of their current legal situation. As the FBI had forbid them from discussing the gag order in any capacity they weren’t able to update it at all, meaning the page broke and informed everyone anyway.

   Even without getting into the effectiveness, it also demonstrates the character of the site owner. It’s a promise to the users to be open about any legal action and even if it won’t always be effective this doesn’t make the promise any less meaningful.