Cloudflare Removes Warrant Canary: Thoughtful Post Says It Can No Longer Say It Hasn't Removed A Site Due To Political Pressure

Furnished content.


Late last week, Cloudflare put up a fascinating and thoughtful blog post discussing (among other things) a change to its warrant canary list. As you hopefully know, a warrant canary is when a service provider makes a proactive statement about something it has supposedly never done. The idea is that if that statement disappears at a later date, one might reasonably infer that the company had been forced to do the thing it claimed it had not ever done -- and, additionally, that it had possibly been gagged from saying so. There are (somewhat reasonable) criticisms of warrant canaries, and to date, they're probably more well known for false alarms than any actual report of gagged pressured malfeasance.Still, Cloudflare's public (so, not gagged) decision to delete a line from its warrant canary is interesting and worth thinking about. The original warrant canary from Cloudflare stated that the company hadn't done any of the following:

1. Cloudflare has never turned over our SSL keys or our customers SSL keys to anyone.
2. Cloudflare has never installed any law enforcement software or equipment anywhere on our network.
3. Cloudflare has never terminated a customer or taken down content due to political pressure.
4. Cloudflare has never provided any law enforcement organization a feed of our customers' content transiting our network.

1. Turned over our encryption or authentication keys or our customers' encryption or authentication keys to anyone.
2. Installed any law enforcement software or equipment anywhere on our network.
3. Terminated a customer or taken down content due to political pressure*
4. Provided any law enforcement organization a feed of our customers' content transiting our network.
5. Modified customer content at the request of law enforcement or another third party.
6. Modified the intended destination of DNS responses at the request of law enforcement or another third party.
7. Weakened, compromised, or subverted any of its encryption at the request of law enforcement or another third party.

We're going to have a long debate internally about whether we need to remove the bullet about not terminating a customer due to political pressure. It's powerful to be able to say you've never done something. And, after today, make no mistake, it will be a little bit harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they don't like.

In August 2019, Cloudflare terminated service to 8chan based on their failure to moderate their hate-filled platform in a way that inspired murderous acts. Although we don't think removing cybersecurity services to force a site offline is the right public policy approach to the hate festering online, a site's failure to take responsibility to prevent or mitigate the harm caused by its platform leaves service providers like us with few choices. We've come to recognize that the prolonged and persistent lawlessness of others might require action by those further down the technical stack. Although we'd prefer that governments recognize that need, and build mechanisms for due process, if they fail to act, infrastructure companies may be required to take action to prevent harm.And that brings us back to our warrant canary. If we believe we might have an obligation to terminate customers, even in a limited number of cases, retaining a commitment that we will never terminate a customer due to political pressure is untenable. We could, in theory, argue that terminating a lawless customer like 8chan was not a termination due to political pressure. But that seems wrong. We shouldn't be parsing specific words of our commitments to explain to people why we don't believe we've violated the standard.We remain committed to the principle that providing cybersecurity services to everyone, regardless of content, makes the Internet a better place. Although we're removing the warrant canary from our website, we believe that to earn and maintain our users' trust, we must be transparent about the actions we take. We therefore commit to reporting on any action that we take to terminate a user that could be viewed as a termination due to political pressure.

0 comments, click here to add the first

Washington Court Says Local Pot Dealers Can Hang Up Christmas Lights That Spell 'POT'

Furnished content.


Buying and selling marijuana is legal in the state of Washington. There are several limits placed on these acts, but it's pretty much the equivalent of alcohol. You have to be 21, can only buy a certain amount at a time, and can't smoke it in public or drive under the influence.What's apparently illegal is playfully announcing your pot business sells pot using nothing but Christmas lights. (via Reason)In 2017, Hashtag Cannabis in Redmond, Washington hung up some Christmas lights on the store that spelled out "P-O-T." Here's a really terrible photo of the contested display, taken from the county court's ruling on Hashtag's pot sign:

Though the State’s position rises above speculation and conjecture, the advertising restrictions have too many conflicting provisions to directly and materially advance the State’s substantial interest in preventing underage consumption of marijuana.

As to content, at argument, counsel for the State agreed that Hashtag could register the word Pot as a business or trade name and then display the word Pot on an otherwise-compliant sign in the store. It follows that, so long as the sign was permanently affixed, no larger than 1,600 square inches, and did not exceed the two-sign limit, it would be permissible.

While the State argues that the restrictions in RCW 69.50.369(2) advance the State’s interest because they “minimize the risk of inordinately capturing the attention of children, youth, and young adults,” Respondent’s Answer at 11, other provisions in the regulatory scheme undermine the advancement of that goal. Hashtag could have a sign using the word Pot if it just registers that business or trade name, and it could conceivably have an entire billboard next door to its store with the word Pot.

If the State wishes to minimize the risk of capturing the attention of children, restricting retailers to two permanently-affixed signs displaying the business or trade name of no more than 1,600 square inches on premises, but allowing billboards off premises, and allowing retailers to register business or trade names such as Pot, does not directly advance that goal.

The Court’s ruling is limited to the on-premises content, size, and affixing restrictions applicable to marijuana retailers, set out in RCW 69.50.369(2) and WAC 314- 55-155(2)(a). The lawful sale of recreational marijuana is relatively new, and it is perhaps not surprising if there is not much research into the effect of advertising on potential underage consumers. The Board could not address the constitutionality of the advertising restrictions. This Court can only say that, on this record, as supplemented, the advertising restrictions violate the U.S. and Washington constitutions. The Court’s ruling does not eliminate all advertising restrictions or suggest a free-for-all.

0 comments, click here to add the first