Data on Storj is by default end-to-end encrypted with keys only the data owner controls (with optional support for sharing features). Only the data owner can decide who to share the keys with and who can see the data. Put another way, Storj can’t access data without the data owner sharing keys and access!
However, if the owner shares the encryption keys and provides access to others, it can be further distributed by others. Storj does not allow illegal content per our terms of use and conditions. If someone has stored potentially illegal content and shared it with others, law enforcement may seek to obtain information by way of a subpoena, warrant, or other legal process. As you probably know since you're reading this thread, often such inquiries are confidential and the recipients may be prohibited from disclosing their existence.
If you're interested in our encryption and security design decisions, there are a lot more details over at https://www.storj.io/disclosures. Glad you're all paying such detailed attention!
"As you probably know since you're reading this thread, often such inquiries are confidential and the recipients may be prohibited from disclosing their existence."
Yes, that is exactly the kind of thing you're supposed to be taking a stand against and resisting.
In fact, warrants like this are not "often" confidential - that is an aberration and an abomination - and a relatively recent one.
We - all of us - should publicly oppose these measures and work to resist them.
EDIT:
I think I have misunderstood - the HN title is incorrect/misleading.
Storj did not remove their warrant canary, they failed to update it.
I'm usually a strong advocate for holding citizens of democratic nations morally accountable for their nation's actions. Asking software authors to martyr and incriminate themselves on behalf of a minuscule fraction of the public, even though they are part of the few doing anything at all, seems exactly backwards. Law reform should start and end with the electorate and their chosen representatives.
Ok, so the hosting company’s management goes to jail, the service goes down, the general public are aware “a warrant was served”, the person hosting illegal content goes to host it somewhere else… who has benefitted from this situation, and how?
Encryption is all well and good, but only when paired with anonymization. It’s worth comparing the Storj privacy stance linked above, which describes numerous ways in which IP addresses might be logged and associated with accounts by their analytics providers, as opposed to e.g. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/vpn-features/no-logs-v... .
Of course it’s a different business model, and I can’t vouch for PIA actually standing by those commitments. And I empathize with wanting to use best in class tooling to optimize your site experience. But prioritization of privacy, and commitments to minimizing log retention, are things you should consider revising to the extent you are legally able to do so. Don’t feel you need to respond here, of course, to that point!
I think his response actually DID address the canary disappearing. By law he cannot say “Yes we have been issues a secret warrant” if they had been served, but if they had NOT been served he could legal say so.
He directly acknowledges that this post is about the canary disappearing and doesn’t immediately explain why. If the canary vanished due to a script failing or a person forgetting to update it he would have loudly and clearly stated that they have not been served and the reason why the canary was not updated.
Those facts, imo, HIGHLY suggest they have been served with a secret warrant.
Because by law it is forbidden to say if they are forced to give access by law. The removal of the canary together with that message without addressing that directly can be seen as strong hint that the where forced to give access.
I am working in security and subjected to audits and do audits on others. This is the way we talk. Painstakingly explicit That this rubs some the wrong way, I can see. Charm is not a currency in this domain.
I of course understand what you mean, but I don't feel like excusing my self for pointing out logical or factual flaws.
I can say that while this is essentially a security discussion and not a dinner party conversation, I am nice to talk to :).
Data on Storj is by default end-to-end encrypted with keys only the data owner controls (with optional support for sharing features). Only the data owner can decide who to share the keys with and who can see the data. Put another way, Storj can’t access data without the data owner sharing keys and access!
However, if the owner shares the encryption keys and provides access to others, it can be further distributed by others. Storj does not allow illegal content per our terms of use and conditions. If someone has stored potentially illegal content and shared it with others, law enforcement may seek to obtain information by way of a subpoena, warrant, or other legal process. As you probably know since you're reading this thread, often such inquiries are confidential and the recipients may be prohibited from disclosing their existence.
If you're interested in our encryption and security design decisions, there are a lot more details over at https://www.storj.io/disclosures. Glad you're all paying such detailed attention!