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 >> <kobrasre...@gmail.com <mailto:kobrasre...@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 compa...@stanford.edu.
