f whoever was under
investigation. Or I could continue updating the canary, and safely
lie to customers.
For this reason at this time I'm of the opinion that it's safer not
to make promises (in the form of a canary like rsync.net's) that
either cannot be kept or risk the entire business in keeping them.
The law is heavily based on intent and tricks like the rsync.net
canary can't be relied upon to get around that. Should rsync.net's
canary survive an actual court order that has a non-disclosure
clause then that would be interesting (although still may not set a
precedent in English law).
I would also be very interested in any other service provider
operating under English law who is making use of such a canary, so
we can compare notes.
Cheers,
Andy
From paul@??? Fri Aug 05 12:23:28 2011
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me ([94.136.40.62])
by bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <paul@???>) id 1QpJQv-0005c1-1G
for users@???; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:23:28 +0000
Received: from [217.156.134.12] (helo=[192.168.168.86])
by mail12.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <paul@???>) id 1QpJQs-0003ku-88
for users@???; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:23:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4E3BE0B3.70308@???>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:23:15 +0100
From: Paul Stimpson <paul@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@???
References: <CALdaYd2gF1NZ5jaS08fgu_RzAWSOnL=ecw7KtJ8yTCSsfaDP_g@???> <4E366A20.7020708@???> <20110801094255.GY5935@???> <20110803133914.GB2328@???>
<20110803143335.GP5935@???>
In-Reply-To: <20110803143335.GP5935@???>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------050902020904090100060504"
X-Mailcore-Auth: 8324857
X-Mailcore-Domain: 844183
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on bitfolk.com at Fri,
05 Aug 2011 12:23:21 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 94.136.40.62
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: paul@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS20738 94.136.40.0/24
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * 0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server
* [217.156.134.12 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust * [94.136.40.62 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Digital Economy Act
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:23:28 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050902020904090100060504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
On 03/08/11 15:33, Andy Smith wrote:
> b) there doesn't appear to be any guarantee that failing to update
> the canary would not be considered breaching any "do not reveal"
> clauses of any court orders that had already been received.
>
> At most serious it would likely be down to a judge's opinion.
>
> e.g. a judge *may* decide, "the court order clearly says that the
> fact you've been served a court order must not be revealed. You
> chose to stop updating your canary with the express purpose of
> alerting the subject that an order may affect them, therefore you're
> going to be prosecuted."
>
I remember my father telling me that in the old days if you had an AA
badge on the grille of your car and you passed an AA officer coming the
other way he would salute you. If there was a speed trap and you were
headed towards it he wouldn't salute. To the best of my knowledge, no AA
mechanic was ever prosecuted for not saluting.
Wikipe
