· 193 comments · Save ·
Announcements Mar 31, 2016 at 5:06 PM

For your reading pleasure, our 2015 Transparency Report

Posted by spez

In 2014, we published our first Transparency Report, which can be found [here](http://www.listnook.com/wiki/transparency/2014). We made a commitment to you to publish an annual report, detailing government and law enforcement agency requests for private information about our users. In keeping with that promise, we’ve published our [2015 transparency report](https://www.listnook.com/wiki/transparency/2015). We hope that sharing this information will help you better understand our [Privacy Policy](https://www.listnook.com/help/privacypolicy) and demonstrate our commitment for Listnook to remain a place that actively encourages authentic conversation. Our goal is to provide information about the number and types of requests for user account information and removal of content that we receive, and how often we are legally required to respond. This isn’t easy as a small company as we don’t always have the tools we need to accurately track the large volume of requests we receive. We will continue, when legally possible, to inform users before sharing user account information in response to these requests. In 2015, we did not produce records in response to 40% of government requests, and we did not remove content in response to 79% of government requests. In 2016, we’ve taken further steps to protect the privacy of our users. We joined our industry peers in an amicus brief [supporting Twitter](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/3d/Twitter_versus_Lynch_Amicus_Brief_February_2016.pdf), detailing our desire to be honest about the national security requests for removal of content and the disclosure of user account information. In addition, we joined an amicus brief [supporting Apple](http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/Airbnb_Atlassian_Automattic_CloudFlare_eBay_GitHub_Kickstarter_LinkedIn_Mapbox_Medium_Meetup_Listnook_Square_Squarespace_Twilio_Twitter_and_Wickr.pdf) in their fight against the government's attempt to force a private company to work on behalf of them. While the government asked the court to [vacate the court order](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/28/technology/document-us-filing-dropping-apple-case.html) compelling Apple to assist them, we felt it was important to stand with Apple and speak out against this unprecedented move by the government, which threatens the relationship of trust between a platforms and its users, in addition to jeopardizing your privacy. We are also excited to announce the launch of our [external law enforcement guidelines](https://www.listnook.com/wiki/law_enforcement_guidelines). Beyond clarifying how Listnook works as a platform and briefly outlining how both federal and state law enforcements can compel Listnook to turn over user information, we believe they make very clear that we adhere to strict standards. We know the success of Listnook is made possible by your trust. We hope this transparency report strengthens that trust, and is a signal to you that we care deeply about your privacy. (I'll do my best to answer questions, but as with all legal matters, I can't always be completely candid.) edit: I'm off for now. There are a few questions that I'll try to answer after I get clarification.
🚩 Report this post

193 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
adeadhead Mar 31, 2016 +803
In 2014, listnook didnt give out any information when requested by non US government bodies. In 2015, it did, despite still being a US company. Were those disclosures legal obligations or listnook simply willingly disclosing information? (Also, what is an 'emergency request'?) Edit: as is mentioned in a lower comment, the gag canary is no longer present in this years report. Thats not the sort of thing that would have been accidently been omitted.
803
isit2003 Mar 31, 2016 +45
Not only did they omit it, they specified the date of January 29, 2015 as being the last date they'll confirm a National Security Letter with a gag order hasn't been issued to them yet. They then mentioned how they'd make an effort to reveal it to us somehow, which seems pretty hinting, as does spez saying he is not allowed to say anything one way or the other on the matter.
45
spez Mar 31, 2016 +682
~~We didn't receive any in 2014, I believe.~~ We received 5 in 2014, but didn't disclose any information. In 2015, we complied with one non-emergency foreign request from Canada because we ended up receiving a subpoena from the US Department of Homeland Security as well. The other foreign requests were emergency requests. An emergency request is something like a suicide or bomb threat. update: clarified the foreign requests.
682
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +415
> In 2015, it did, despite still being a US company. Were those disclosures legal obligations or listnook simply willingly disclosing information? You skirted right over this. Whats the answer?
415
spez Mar 31, 2016 +486
We never willingly hand over information. I don't know this specific case off the top of my head, but I will ask. update: updated the my first reply above with more context.
486
BaconZombie Mar 31, 2016 +211
> willingly "willingly" means without a court order or warrant.
211
CarrollQuigley Mar 31, 2016 +36
In his defense, that question was edited into the original comment after /u/spez's response. That said, if listnook has removed the canary for any reason other than having received a National Security Letter then I'm sure /u/spez would take this opportunity to clarify the point.
36
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +99
[deleted]
99
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +11
If they get a letter they can't answer. That's the whole damn point of the canary ffs.
11
unused-username Apr 1, 2016 +42
Regarding suicides, what does this mean for people posting in /r/suicidewatch? With news like this, it's definitely going to self-sensor some people especially if /r/suicidewatch is at risk. Without a doubt, this is going to put severely depressed and suicidal people from reaching out due to self-censorship and 'paranoia' (for lack of a much better term).
42
skyqween Apr 1, 2016 +8
/r/suicidewatch mod here. We have a working relationship with the admins, who understand that anonymity is necessary for the function of our sublistnook. I also want to point out that the emergency requests also include things like bomb threats. In less extreme cases, I'm betting this also covers death threats.
8
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +8622
Interesting to note that the national security Canary in the 2014 transparency report is no longer present in the 2015 transparency report.
8622
riningear Mar 31, 2016 +845
I was looking for this, it should be higher up. This is part of the reason why transparency reports are so important and I applaud Listnook for taking that initiative last year before... Well, see the purpose of a Canary report. Can someone give a briefing on this for those that don't know what we're on about? I'm on mobile and can't pull up good links/info.
845
lazyfrag Mar 31, 2016 +824
The general idea of a canary is that if an entity is legally not allowed to say if they've received a certain request, then they say when they haven't, and remove the "canary" statement if they have. It only works once, and provides limited information, but it's better than nothing. Edit: [Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) courtesy of /u/Skjie.
824
TheRedGerund Mar 31, 2016 +481
Could you just keep adding canaries with slight modifications? "We have never received a letter." "We've never received TWO letters." etc. Half joking half serious.
481
Has_No_Gimmick Mar 31, 2016 +318
I'm pretty sure this would be crossing the line. Either way, I don't expect this method of skirting the letter of the law will stick around forever. Australia has already banned it. Communications companies there can no longer make statements about the existence or non-existence of secret warrants.
318
MisterWoodhouse Mar 31, 2016 +183
> I'm pretty sure this would be crossing the line. Not even the EFF is sure if the use of a one-time canary is legal, since the warrant canary never been tested in a US court, so a variable canary would definitely be bad news bears.
183
nixonrichard Mar 31, 2016 +96
I don't see how that follows. The fact that it has never been tested means maybe the courts would find them to be completely acceptable in unlimited detail. The only alternative is for the government to have the power to force everyone (even those they have never dealt with) to not convey truthful information, or to require organization to lie to protect their operations. Both seem like huge free speech violations. Forcing a company to lie to users strikes me as a bridge too far.
96
198jazzy349 Apr 1, 2016 +50
>Forcing a company to lie to users strikes me as a bridge too far. *that's* where we draw the line? I'd draw it waaay before there.
50
Grolagro Apr 1, 2016 +3
I'll look more into it, but this is from the Wiki > Warrant canaries have been found to be legal by the United States Justice Department, so long as they are passive in their notifications.[3][4][5] This was also in the Wiki, and seems to point towards what you are saying > In July 2014, US security researcher Moxie Marlinspike stated that "every lawyer we've spoken to has confirmed that [a warrant canary] would not work" for the TextSecureserver.[21] In September 2014, Marlinspike added to this by stating that "[i]f it's illegal to advertise that you've received a court order of some kind, it's illegal to intentionally and knowingly take any action that has the effect of advertising the receipt of that order. A judge can't force you to do anything, but every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a "canary" you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something."[21]
3
TinyCuts Mar 31, 2016 +152
The whole concept of secret warrants is so fucked up and against everything that democracy stands for. Any country that uses such a tactic should be ashamed of itself.
152
198jazzy349 Apr 1, 2016 +39
There are so many things countries should be ashamed of. Trust me, they aren't.
39
ItsAConspiracy Mar 31, 2016 +17
Australia has a more limited [notion](http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx) of freedom of speech, without an explicit guarantee in its constitution.
17
TheBallPeenHammerer Mar 31, 2016 +16
"We did not recieve any letters before the month of November during the 2015 year."
16
Great_Zarquon Mar 31, 2016 +28
"The days we did not receive any letters includes, but may or may not be limited to, all days that proceeded November 14th, 2015 and all days that have passed since that date."
28
Req_It_Reqi Mar 31, 2016 +29
Can they say they didn't receive one in a certain year?
29
InukChinook Mar 31, 2016 +59
I did not have sequel relations with *that* woman.
59
Exaskryz Mar 31, 2016 +19
>I did not have sequel relations with *that* woman. What about prequel?
19
InukChinook Mar 31, 2016 +27
What came before is in the past.
27
TehAlpacalypse Mar 31, 2016 +206
Listnook can't give information on National security requests they get. However they can claim they haven't ever had to comply with a government request of the sort, called a canary, since in mines the canary would be used to detect gas leaks. However since the claim is gone we can assume they got requests they had to comply with.
206
accountnumber3 Mar 31, 2016 +24
Such as? Sorry I'm still lost here.
24
jumnhy Mar 31, 2016 +233
Certain warrants are secret--typically done in cases where a govt agency don't want the targets to know that their privacy has been compromised. This is obviously scary given the lack of transparency--you, as a presumedly innocent citizen, would never know that your privacy was gone. A warrant canary is a statement from an organization that has custody of your info (ie, listnook, facebook, google, etc) saying that they've never complied with a secret warrant request. Once they (in this case Reddut)have gotten a sealed warrant, they're forbidden from talking about it--at which point they remove the statement, as a way of letting their users know that they have had to release some information due to a secret warrant. That's my simplified, layman's understanding.
233
accountnumber3 Mar 31, 2016 +27
It only takes one single request for one single person for them to remove the canary statement, right? With listnook's 10 billion user accounts ^(I totally made this up), it's really not that surprising. If it were on a site that only had 10 accounts (digg lol) it would be a more significant revelation. Am I right? I feel like there's only two ways to use this information: 1. User makes a comment that would put them on a list. FBI requests real identity and either investigates or abandons it. Not a huge deal to me; if you're going to make public comments that would put you on a list, you gotta expect that they'll look into it. 2. FBI targets an individual and believes that they go by a certain username. A request could confirm or deny it so that they can continue investigating. Again, not really a big deal to me. It's not exactly the same thing as closing the bathroom door when you're taking a shit. This is a public forum. People get mad at the FBI for investigating things, then they get mad at them for not investigating enough. Where's the middle ground?
27
jumnhy Mar 31, 2016 +29
Yep! It's more of a "is this site being monitored at all" than anything else. Now we know that sometime since Jan 2015, some govt agency made some kind of a request of Listnook. Listnook is on the radar, that's all it means. To me it's really more interesting that they were a safe haven up until that point (from secret warrants, that is).
29
YourMotherSaysHello Mar 31, 2016 +28
Other end of the spectrum however is more unnerving. For example, a blanket request for all usernames and associated passwords by the NSA, that information is then used to test access to other social media accounts related to the users IP.
28
accountnumber3 Mar 31, 2016 +17
I didn't consider blanket requests, or passwords. That is a bit unnerving. But doesn't any reputable site salt and hash passwords so they're not stored in a recoverable format? Listnook is open source, how do they store passwords?
17
BearViaMyBread Mar 31, 2016 +24
Thanks, I think this is the best explanation posted
24
jumnhy Mar 31, 2016 +39
Thanks! To add, someone else protested "maybe they just left it out for some other reason, we can't know for sure". Another user then pointed out that the admins could easily speak up at that point if that was the case. Spez responded saying he wouldn't say one way or the other... Which, given their professed interest in letting us know, is a tacit admission that Listnook info has definitely been subpoenaed in the last year under a gag order.
39
vampyrita Mar 31, 2016 +40
Okay i understand that the canary is telling us that something happened that they're not allowed to tell us about, but i don't understand what happened that they can't tell us. I know why the canary is/isn't there, but what's the gas leak?
40
pavlpants Mar 31, 2016 +162
Here's the original canary >As of January 29, 2015, listnook has never received a National Security Letter, an order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or any other classified request for user information. If we ever receive such a request, we would seek to let the public know it existed. Since it was removed, it's safe to assume they received a letter from the NSA/FBI/Govt. We have no way of finding out, but the point of the canary is just to let us know that they were targeted by the US Govt.
162
Combat_Wombatz Mar 31, 2016 +20
The US government can request that a company divulge information on the basis of "national security" and simultaneously prohibit the company from saying that they have received such a request. These request can be very broad. Basically, it means an agency like the NSA has likely scraped every word on this site and used any feasible means to connect those words to whoever posted them.
20
Skjie Mar 31, 2016 +28
Is this what you are talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
28
spez Mar 31, 2016 +2623
Even with the canaries, we're treading a fine line. The whole thing is icky, which is why we [joined Twitter](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/3d/Twitter_versus_Lynch_Amicus_Brief_February_2016.pdf) in pushing back.
2623
CarrollQuigley Mar 31, 2016 +2875
It sounds like listnook has received a National Security Letter since January 29, 2015.
2875
triplebream Apr 1, 2016 +215
> It sounds like listnook has received a National Security Letter since January 29, 2015. Well, what do you know? Feb 23, 2015: [We are Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald from the Oscar-winning documentary CITIZENFOUR. AUAA](https://www.listnook.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn) May 21, 2015: [Just days left to kill mass surveillance under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. We are Edward Snowden and the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer. AUA.](http://www.listnook.com/r/IAmA/comments/36ru89/just_days_left_to_kill_mass_surveillance_under/) Both those AMAs were after January 29, 2015. My guess: they wanted to see what IP address Snowden was connecting from, or what other data on his whereabouts they could otherwise extract from his browser headers or from browser fingerprinting. They may have issued Listnook an NSL just like they did Lavabit. Nauseating. Edit: FTR: I know Ed would be using anonymization, but that would have been the case with Lavabit, too. They won't care and issue the NSL *anyway*. Even worse, this may mean they've forced Listnook to give up their private TLS key.
215
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +26
I'm more bothered by the government's reflexive use of disproportionate power to crack down on Edward Snowden than I am about mass surveillance. It's one thing for the government to create an expensive and dangerous weapon, it's another thing for that weapon to be used out of vengeance towards people who question government authority. Mas surveillance is used to find people like Edward Snowden or the Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Given that the government is already losing the drug war in every other sphere and there are many other people doing what Ross Ulbricht was doing, it can only be that Ross Ulbricht's "The DreadPirate Roberts" had an anti-regulatory message.
26
TRL5 Apr 1, 2016 +77
And that's pretty much a "best case" explanation for why listnook would be issued one too. I hope they are fighting at least the gag order, and win.
77
titopk Apr 1, 2016 +6
>My guess: they wanted to see what IP address Snowden was connecting from, or what other data on his whereabouts they could otherwise extract from his browser headers or from browser fingerprinting. but...what happend if im the employer who will help or verify Edward, but im in the listnook office while edward is in europe (idk where is right now) and we commmunicated by whatsapp or phone call, or IRC or Tinder, whaterver app you want. and im telling the questions by this, and im just transcribe all the things. this affected listnook in some way? Sorry english is not my born language. hope you understand.
6
sageDieu Mar 31, 2016 +2849
That's the entire point of the canary, he isn't allowed to say anything about it, the fact it was removed means that a gag order has been issued. 100% final, no discussion.
2849
lonelyinsf33 Mar 31, 2016 +157
Can someone ELI5 what a canary is and why it's important that it's no longer present?
157
profmonocle Mar 31, 2016 +473
If you receive a National Security Letter, you're not legally allowed to tell anyone about it. But you aren't forced to lie and say you've never gotten one.* So a lot of sites have "warrant canaries", where they periodically say that they've never received a national security letter. If they stop saying that, it probably means they got one. The term comes from the caged canaries they used to keep in underground mines to detect carbon monoxide. ("canary in the coal mine") Canaries are more sensitive to carbon monoxide poisoning, so they'd get sick well before the human workers. If the canary got sick or died, it was a sign that the workers should evacuate the mine. Likewise, the disappearance of Listnook's warrant canary is a sign that they've received a national security letter but can't legally tell us about it. \* Edit: Just to be clear, this is an assumption many tech companies are making, not settled law - the legality of warrant canaries has never been tested in the US. It's possible a court could rule that removing the canary is a violation of the gag order. Listnook is taking a significant legal risk by removing it, hence the "fine line" that /u/spez alluded to.
473
OmicronNine Apr 1, 2016 +667
> * Edit: Just to be clear, this is an assumption many tech companies are making, not settled law - the legality of warrant canaries has never been tested in the US. It's possible a court could rule that removing the canary is a violation of the gag order. Listnook is taking a significant legal risk by removing it, hence the "fine line" that /u/spez alluded to. Just to be *extra* clear, because it's probably an important legal distinction, they did not *remove* anything, there was no action taken on their part. The 2015 Transparency Report did not previously exist, so there was no warrant canary for them to remove. They simply did not take any action to include one this year.
667
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +236
That's an important distinction and I'm glad you pointed it out. Nicely done.
236
yishan Apr 1, 2016 +308
This is very significant and interesting to me. EDIT: Okay, I wrote this: https://www.listnook.com/r/yishan/comments/4cub02/transparency_reports_and_subpoenas_eli5/
308
TK421isAFK Apr 1, 2016 +36
That's a very interesting comment from which I infer there to be significance to the previous few comments, primarily due to the depth of this comment. It's rare to see an admin comment this deep in a thread, especially an admin that's not the OP. Just an observation.
36
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +14
I've always wondered how they might go about warning us. And I've always thought the transparency reports were a bunch of publicity BS. I was wrong. And the transparency report has fulfilled it's very important purpose. It seems so strange that websites have to jump through so many hoops to protect their users.
14
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +653
aka this privacy report is now effectively useless
653
sageDieu Mar 31, 2016 +683
Yep! Everything in this report could be a complete lie and they can't confirm whether it is or not. Plus every report they ever issue in the future. With the canary gone, we know for certain that the government has access to previously private data, and listnook can't stop them or give us any information about it.
683
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +360
good god America is fucked up ~ random Canadian guy
360
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +28
[deleted]
28
chainer3000 Mar 31, 2016 +47
Well, it was actually pretty useful in that they've omitted the previous canary
47
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +20
It served it's purpose wonderfully though. We now know everything is compromised.
20
SandorClegane_AMA Mar 31, 2016 +446
We understand the situation you are in and how you cannot communicate this information directly. If you have not received National Security Letter since January 29, 2015, give me a free lifetime supply of Listnook Gold. If you don't, we'll know what that means.
446
KSFT__ Mar 31, 2016 +78
No, no, you're doing it wrong. If you have not received a National Security Letter, do *not* give me a free lifetime supply of gold.
78
SandorClegane_AMA Mar 31, 2016 +82
Keep your grubby hands off my gold.
82
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +189
[deleted]
189
garynuman9 Mar 31, 2016 +77
I would like to thank you for bringing the phrase tin foil friendly into my life
77
iamplasma Apr 1, 2016 +11
> Does Listnook encrypt the back end (databases) when making backups and when retrieving and storing data? How would that work? If Listnook encrypted their database, they would also have to have the decryption keys so as to be able to use the encrypted database. So if the Feds show up with a warrant, they can still access everything. Encryption of stored data works when the person storing the data doesn't have (or can't realistically be compelled to produce) the decryption keys. So you can have encrypted mail servers where each user's mail is encrypted using their own private key that they keep and which is never stored (at least more than temporarily) on the server. You can't really do that with listnook since it needs to be able to access users' data.
11
The_Serious_Account Apr 1, 2016 +12
>So you can have encrypted mail servers where each user's mail is encrypted using their own private key that they keep and which is never stored (at least more than temporarily) on the server. Cryptographer here. It's actually technically possible for the private key to *never* be on the server. It continues to sadden me to see the huge disconnect between the advancements we make in cryptography and the ridiculously slow adaptation in applied cryptography.
12
ryno55 Apr 1, 2016 +18
He means if there are just naive taps placed, for example, on (backup) files saved to S3, encrypting the files you send to S3 would protect you from a hacker who can read S3 data, but doesn't have shell access to your running systems (with the key).
18
EVMasterRace Apr 1, 2016 +18
Feds showing up with a warrant is a big f****** improvement over what they do now.
18
Tommy2255 Mar 31, 2016 +57
Blink twice if the government's been touching your no-no.
57
theytsejam Mar 31, 2016 +20
Holy shit! This post just induced me to go on wikipedia to read about [Warrant Canaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary), and I saw that listnook was listed as no longer using one, with a link to this thread as a citation. That was fast!
20
Scorpius289 Mar 31, 2016 +129
I find canaries (or rather, the lack of them) really scary. You just know that something is very, very wrong, but you have no (legal) way of finding out what...
129
TinyCuts Mar 31, 2016 +93
The fact that they are even necessary just goes to show you how undemocratic the laws of the United States are
93
John_Barlycorn Mar 31, 2016 +37
Snowden told us a lot of what it is. We're fucked. There's literally nothing short of violent revolution that's going to stop this fascism freight train and I've no desire to be involved in any of that. I feel sorry for our grand children that will have to suffer and overthrow this bullshit we so easily let yourselves slip into.
37
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +51
Someone wanted a ELI5 of this down the thread: Listnook's transparency report discloses all governments' requests for users info except for those that governments don't want disclosed. Is that it?
51
John_Barlycorn Mar 31, 2016 +41
The government can seek a court order to gag the recipient of a request. This includes requests that are as dramatic as "Log all of your user data all day and give it to us, all the time." In Listnooks previous report they'd stated that they've never received such a request in the past. Now that's missing so it's safe to assume that the federal government, is in fact, trawling all of this data 24/7. i.e. You're now effectively reading/posting to an NSA website. Unfortunately, if we move to another site, the feds will simply do the same thing again. The NSA now owns the internet.
41
Schonke Mar 31, 2016 +11
Easiest to describe it using a canary analogy. Miners used canaries to alert them of dangerous monoxide poisoning. As long as the bird sang all was well. As long as Listnook hasn't received an order to be quiet by the government, they will say that they haven't.
11
Hellblood1 Mar 31, 2016 +246
https://canarywatch.org/ Is a great site that lists and monitors canaries.
246
CuilRunnings Mar 31, 2016 +449
[Last time you updated policies it included this line](https://archive.is/RHzRx): >We may share information if we believe your actions are inconsistent with our user agreements, rules, or other Listnook policies, or to protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and others; How many times have you divulged users private information due to listnook's "beliefs"?
449
spez Mar 31, 2016 +635
To third parties? Never that I can recall. But, if we believe you're a spammer, yes, we'll read your PMs (PM spam is very common). If you make a threat of violence (e.g. suicide or bomb threat), we will investigate to see if there's something we should do. The latter situation is relatively rare.
635
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +527
Just in case people aren't aware, there are suicide threats many *many* times a day on listnook. Like between /r/AskListnook /r/advice and /r/relationships I see probably a dozen a day. I'm not sure exactly what the admins do with the reports I send them, but I hope that it helps... :/
527
WontonDesire Mar 31, 2016 +20
I wouldn't call some of those "suicide threats". As a member and contributor to /r/Bipolar, many users talk about suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts. Talking about suicide and that you think about it shouldn't always be considered a "suicide threat"
20
trillskill Mar 31, 2016 +139
I once had to report someone on (I believe) /r/SuicideWatch because they were planning on killing themselves and their children so "they would be safe".
139
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +54
[deleted]
54
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +27
/r/SanctionedSuicide really helped me when i was at my lowest. It was nice to not feel alone even if just for a bit.
27
KnowMatter Apr 1, 2016 +24
It's weird but I 100% get what you mean. Sometimes when you are in a dark place the last thing you want to hear is some motivational BS about life always getting better and whatever. Sometimes you just need to wallow in your misery and pass through it. Taking a look at that sub I don't really see people rooting each other on to actually kill themselves but people all getting together to talk about why life f****** sucks and why suicide is such an attractive option.
24
soldierofwellthearmy Apr 1, 2016 +9
Feeling like you're "allowed" to have an out is one of the ways to avoid the spiralling self-loathing, guilt and desperation that typically leads to genuine self-harm/suicide. I work with suicide-prevention among veterans, and one the things you learn early on is to be non-judgemental. One veteran, who's chosen to go public with his story, described how a conversation with his mother where she said "it would be ok" if he killed himself, was the turning point for him. Because he didn't feel as alone. I'm not saying that's the intended effect of the sub, but it's a by-product. And that's kind of nice. I'm really glad to hear it helped you, and I hope you're able to continue to find the things and people in your life, and yourself,that can make your life good enough for you. :)
9
SamMee514 Mar 31, 2016 +23
> what the admins do with the reports I send them For clarification, reporting a comment or post goes to the moderators of the sublistnook and not to the admins. You would have to send a mail to the admins [directly](https://www.listnook.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flistnook.com&subject=&message=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.listnook.com%2Fcontact%2F), if you haven't already been doing so.
23
frozenbobo Mar 31, 2016 +49
He is a moderator of those sublistnooks. I'm guessing he wasn't reporting posts to himself. Still, that's good advice for anyone else reading.
49
X019 Mar 31, 2016 +21
I've seen them on /r/Christianity. OH HEY! I didn't even see who I was reply to! haha. Get back to work.
21
omegasavant Apr 1, 2016 +53
Does this mean that people are getting reported to the police if they say they're planning to kill themselves on Listnook? The relative anonymity of a place like /r/SuicideWatch is the whole point; the fear of getting forcibly institutionalized is one of the main reasons that people *don't* seek help in real life.
53
skyqween Apr 1, 2016 +5
Mod of that sublistnook here! We are very into privacy. As in, we do all things possible to protect our poster's privacy and keep well intended but often uneducated people from doxxing and reporting them. Interventions (like the police being called on you when you're already freaking out and feeling as though everything is ruined and the only thing to do is kill yourself) are incredibly traumatic and often lead to people turning inward, rather than being able to ask for help.
5
MrLegilimens Mar 31, 2016 +158
> In 2015, we did not produce records in response to 40% of government requests, I'm curious what kind of requests were made in which you did provide records? I'm just confused why / what would it take to make both a government say "We want to know about /u/MrLegilimens" but also what would make you say Yes (or no).
158
spez Mar 31, 2016 +237
Our [law enforcement guidelines](https://www.listnook.com/wiki/law_enforcement_guidelines) document how we can be legally compelled to share information. Our general strategy is to store as little as possible to minimize our surface area. I also encourage users to share as little as possible for the same reason.
237
mattzach84 Mar 31, 2016 +39
Is it still the case that if a user deletes each individual comment as well as the account used to post them, that listnook does not maintain a backup of the user's comments?
39
gioraffe32 Mar 31, 2016 +48
I thought you had to edit each comment and then delete it (or leave it as a bunch of asterisks or whatever), not just delete it. Keep in mind, though, there are lots of sites out there that appear to crawl and copy listnook content over to their own servers.
48
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +11
[deleted]
11
workraken Mar 31, 2016 +6
Other websites are likely caching posts, and there isn't too much Listnook can do about that. Even coming up with some kind of simple trick to get THOSE systems to replace the original cached data with something else could be circumvented by the operators of those sites.
6
deusset Mar 31, 2016 +8
[Yes.](https://www.listnook.com/r/announcements/comments/3sbrro/account_suspensions_a_transparent_alternative_to/cwvtjwx?context=2) >>Will a suspended user be able to delete / edit their posts? >Yes. We want users to always have control over their content. Thanks for pointing this out, I will updated the post to mention it explicitly. It's also said more explicitly somewhere else in that thread, but I'm late for work.
8
chengiz Mar 31, 2016 +71
> **India** We received 11 requests from cyber crime investigation authorities in India requesting the removal of content, which was allegedly “disturbing public order”. None were complied with, with a majority of the content not being hosted by Listnook. However the table just above this says 8 posts and 1 user account were affected. What does that mean? In what ways can posts/users be affected if requests arent complied with?
71
spez Apr 1, 2016 +20
In India, you're right our phrasing could be better, and we'll take into account for our next report. The "What was affected" means that the 11 requests related to 8 posts and 1 user account (there were 3 requests related to that 1 user account).
20
MisterWoodhouse Mar 31, 2016 +6
~~I wonder if this was a phrasing error. I read the affected column as defining the scope of the total requests, rather than the outcome, but I might have been wrong there.~~ EDIT: Yup, I read that wrong. Just did the math on the Russian requests vs affected stuff. Definitely interested to see if there's a response on the India question.
6
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +285
[deleted]
285
brokenarrow Mar 31, 2016 +24
IIRC, the only way to truly "delete" a comment is to edit it first, and then delete it. This is where the, "I like turtles," listnook meme became popular. For example.... if I posted, "F*** the police!" and subsequently deleted it, "F*** the police!" would be archived for x number of days. However, had I edited my comment to read, "I like turtles!" (Or, really, anything else, but, that was the example that was used by the admin) before deletion, only the most recent edit would be the version of my now-deleted comment would be archived.
24
spez Mar 31, 2016 +334
My understanding is we can delete whatever we want, unless we receive a "preservation request." We keep the deleted comments in an attempt to preserve the continuity of conversation. It's purely a product decision.
334
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +277
[deleted]
277
spez Mar 31, 2016 +288
The behavior is different when someone explicitly deletes a comment (we don't show it) versus deleting their account (we don't show the account name on the comment). update to answer some questions: When a user deletes a comment, we keep the body of the comment, but we don't display it anywhere. The reason was it simplified the implementation at the time. That's not a sacred horse, and it's something we can reconsider. In the context of this conversation, I don't believe we've ever turned over deleted comments (I don't think anyone has asked, either). If you modify a comment, we don't keep previous versions.
288
cocorebop Mar 31, 2016 +65
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think that answers the question - if someone explicitly deletes a comment, it sounds like you guys keep it, according to your comment above. If so, in what way does it preserve the continuity of conversation, since that is the case where a comment isn't shown, as you say in this comment?
65
Tasgall Apr 1, 2016 +5
> If so, in what way does it preserve the continuity of conversation It keeps continuity/order of the comments - it sounds like it was done just because it was easier. For example, if we have a comment tree that looks like this: > Some comment >> a response >>> a lower response >> another response `< Let's 'delete' this one` >>> level 3 response >>>> level 4 response >> [removed] `< A mod removed this one` if we deleted "another response", what happens to the comments below it? If we bump them all up and make them children of the top level comment, it probably won't make sense, so they want to keep the rest of the comment metadata (date posted, score, user, etc) and just display it with a [deleted] tag. Implementation wise (i.e, the code that does this) doesn't actually remove the comment metadata, so they just don't bother making any change to the database other than marking it as deleted. The `[removed]` comment is a similar mechanism, but the mods can still read the body text.
5
njtrafficsignshopper Mar 31, 2016 +19
Unless they've changed things - and this has been confirmed in the past - if you want it actually deleted, you can hit edit, then overwrite it with another comment (a single character will do) and *then* delete it. Keep in mind that off-site comment aggregators exist, though.
19
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +31
Just a guess, but it might be so that the Admins and/or Mods can see the thread for adjudication purposes.
31
fourdots Mar 31, 2016 +19
Moderators cannot see user-deleted comments, although we can see comments which we've removed, which have been automatically removed by the spam filter, and comments by shadow-banned users.
19
lastresort08 Mar 31, 2016 +195
Why don't you guys make it easier for users to make that choice? Why is there no option for the user to automatically delete all comments if he wishes to do so? I know you prefer to preserve the conversations, but do you have to do this by making it difficult for the authors of the posts to remove their own posts? Why do you make the users work for their own right to privacy?
195
InternetUser007 Mar 31, 2016 +39
[There are ways to edit, then delete, your entire account history](https://www.listnook.com/r/Blackout2015/comments/3c3evc/you_can_overwrite_and_then_delete_all_your/). That way they are truly removed from listnook's servers (as they only keep the latest unless they are saving your comments for a specific reason).
39
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +16
This is confirmed to still work? (Post is 9 months old.)
16
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +29
[deleted]
29
klart_vann Mar 31, 2016 +11
..what if the original comment was copied completely anonymous, that way people could still follow the conversation? edit: I mean, as an option to completely deleted, in case the comment contains sensitive information etc
11
brickmack Mar 31, 2016 +93
Is there ever going to be a "disown comment" tool? Something effectively the same on the comment level as deleting your account, but without actually deleting it?
93
PhoenixAvenger Mar 31, 2016 +13
I believe there is a tool out there that will edit every comment then delete it. Since listnook only saves the last version of a comment, even the saved deleted comment is then blank. At least that's how it used to work, no idea if it's still the same.
13
del_rio Mar 31, 2016 +16
That's a different tool from what he's asking about. What he's requesting is a way to essentially comment anonymously, which would effectively stop the creation of single-use alt accounts but make discussion a little more 4chan-esque.
16
PhoenixAvenger Mar 31, 2016 +12
Ah. Yeah, doubtful listnook would ever implement that as it sounds like a spammers wet dream.
12
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +73
That would enable listnook to behave almost identically to anonymous boards e.g. 4chan
73
9277d072a62df600b905 Mar 31, 2016 +10
It would be cool to have this feature but have it be sublistnook specific. /r/4chan for awhile had usernames as "Anonymous" in the CSS. It would be cool if there was a setting in sublistnook settings that everyone can post actually anonymously. And make it so only listnook admins could see who posted stuff, and make it so mods see a "code name" for the user (for banning and such).
10
EpikYummeh Mar 31, 2016 +126
This is how listnook becomes 4chan
126
Browsing_From_Work Mar 31, 2016 +32
So zero-effort throwaway accounts?
32
JordyLakiereArt Mar 31, 2016 +12
Aren't they already zero effort? You type in a name and give it some random password. Dont even need an email or anything.
12
Taikatohtori Mar 31, 2016 +5
The behavior is different on the front end, sure, but if someone explicitly deletes a comment is it still in your database? If so, why?
5
superluminary Mar 31, 2016 +4
It's actually extraordinarily difficult to properly delete anything from a server. Even if you remove it from the database, any comment you make will be present in multiple archived log files. It might be deleted from the file system, but are you going to overwrite it with zeros? If it's embedded in a zipped text file that would be impractical. It might take minutes to fully delete a single comment. Deleting stuff from the database also leaves an ugly hole in the datamodel. What about replies, upvotes, upvotes on replies, gold on replies, etc. It's a tough thing to do properly.
4
Sunsparc Mar 31, 2016 +19
I'm an amateur coder, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I imagine it's fairly simple to flag the comment as "deleted" in the database then have the markup show a [deleted] tag instead when it sees the deleted flag in the database.
19
brilliantjoe Mar 31, 2016 +578
So, how do we know you're being transparent about how you built this report? I think we need a Transparency Report Transparency Report.
578
spez Mar 31, 2016 +446
Send us a request for information and see for yourself!
446
brilliantjoe Mar 31, 2016 +190
We will need a 3rd party present to verify the validity of the information request.
190
moxyll Mar 31, 2016 +86
How do you know you can trust the 3rd party? I say we need a 4th party as well!
86
PipBoy808 Mar 31, 2016 +13
Somebody call Digg. They're not up to much.
13
j3rbear Mar 31, 2016 +56
Can I ask listnook if there's been any requests pertaining to my account? Will I get an answer?
56
mynewaccount5 Apr 1, 2016 +3
If you had bothered reading the report >User Notice >Our goal is to give users the information they need to seek legal advice before their records are disclosed. As such, our policy is to notify users (to the extent legally permissible) of any request for information received with respect to their account if, after comprehensive evaluation of the request, we determine that we are required to disclose or remove content. >Many requests we receive contain demands to withhold notice from users that carry no legal weight. We actively contest or disregard these non-binding demands. Where Listnook receives an order to delay or refrain from notice for a defined period of time, Listnook will endeavor to provide notice to the user after expiration of that time period if Listnook has reason to believe that the circumstances giving rise to the nondisclosure order no longer present the risk of an adverse result. >We do not give users notice if we receive a preservation request with respect their account, as a preservation request, alone, does not compel us to disclose information to authorities.
3
bcgoss Mar 31, 2016 +11
It appears the policy is to notify whenever possible. So if you haven't been notified by listnook, then either nobody's asked, or when they asked it was accompanied by a Non-Disclosure order.
11
iBleeedorange Mar 31, 2016 +831
How should I respond when I get PMs of users requesting me to take down posts that I posted. Also, how should I respond when a user contacts me (as a mod) requesting to take down a post/comment?
831
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +35
/r/pics has a little policy if its a photographer wanting us to remove thier picture, if they can prove its thiers (facebook, etc), we remove it If its a person in a picture, and tehy can prove its them (timestmaped picture), we remove it Otherwise, they get the old "Please contact legal@listnook.com" copypastarino
35
aegist1 Mar 31, 2016 +60
As a mod: stick to the rules of the sub. Anything above that, report it to the admins. As a user: tell them to eat a bag of dicks.
60
krispykrackers Mar 31, 2016 +336
You can send them to us, let us deal with those types of requests. Those aren't your responsibility.
336
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +16
[deleted]
16
ShadoowtheSecond Mar 31, 2016 +13
Listnook has said again and again that the mods can do literally whatever they want with thwir sublistnooks. There are no moderation limits or anything like that. Just dont break the site rules (of which banning you from those subs is not) and you can be as petty and tyrannical as you want. This has been answered every time this question comes up.
13
unixwizzard Apr 1, 2016 +3
> There are no moderation limits or anything like that. Just dont break the site rules (of which banning you from those subs is not) and you can be as petty and tyrannical as you want. Maybe it's time the listnook site rules be expanded to add a few new rules for moderators in order to try to curtail, or at least minimize some of the abuse by those moderators? For example if I were to be banned from a sub, of had a submission removed with no explanation, and I send a mod mail politely asking why, and the response I get from a moderator is like "F*** you, go kill yourself a******!", there should be some sort of repercussion for that mod and/or sub - especially if there is a pattern with that moderator or sub. There are many ways to deal with abusive users, but abusive moderators continue to get a pass. I think it's past time to change that. I've been online using many different types of forums / discussion boards since at least 1988-89.. I have never encountered a place that has had this level of mod abuse be allowed to go on unchecked until I found this place called listnook.
3
Crackmacs Mar 31, 2016 +11
Recently in /r/Calgary we've had a couple requests for comments to be removed, related to 'slander' or 'defamation', from what I guess are the business owners. We've told them to e-mail contact@listnook.com, they won't be removed. Haven't heard anything since.
11
shiverstar Mar 31, 2016 +941
I can see right through your report.
941
spez Mar 31, 2016 +745
Fastest pun in the West.
745
IDKWTHImSaying Mar 31, 2016 +193
Hi, /u/spez. What's happening... We need to talk about your transparency reports. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the transparency reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be greeeat. All right?
193
nerddtvg Mar 31, 2016 +39
Did you get the memo? I'll get you another copy of the memo.
39
TalktoberryFin Mar 31, 2016 +570
I'd be very interested in reading some court documents that contain things like :   >"...*We began our enhanced interrogation of /u/PoopyPocketsMcArthur on October 17^th*..."   >"*...We then discovered XXXXXXXX had been maintaining a separate identity, carousing the internet under the alias of /u/PM_ME_YOUR_ROLLERSK8S, where he took special interest in a variety of forums particularly with regards to chemtrails and President George W. Bush's culpability in "working a part-time job at 7/11"...*"   >"...*On the night of April 15^th we observed /u/AWildNincompoopAppeared repeatedly submit a series of cartoon frog pictures, which he described as "Pepes". A moderator took notice of his activities, and confronted /u/AWildNincompoop on the resubmission of the same "Pepes", warning him that this could be considered spam, to which /u/AWildNincompoop replied, "I can guarantee that you've never seen these before, because they are extremely rare Pepes, some of the rarest in my collection"...*"   >"...*When we questioned /u/Grunting_In_Morsecode on the authenticity of his statements, he replied "We both know the rules, and what other guy could get you this? I'm not going to give up, and I promise I will not let you down. I'm not giving you the run around, and I'd certainly not desert you. I'd never want to make you cry, which is why I'll never say goodbye, you know that I'm not the one to tell a lie, nor am I the type to hurt you.*..."
570
EpikYummeh Mar 31, 2016 +80
I was surprised to see none of those accounts existed. Who wouldn't want to be called /u/PoopyPocketsMcArthur??
80
youvgottabefuckingme Apr 1, 2016 +12
Dropped the ball when /u/Grunting_In_Morsecode didn't write the entire comment in dots and dashes.
12
TalktoberryFin Apr 1, 2016 +23
.-- . ·----· .-. . -. --- ... - .-. .- -. --. . .-. ... - --- .-.. --- ...- . -.-- --- ..- -.- -. --- .-- - .... . .-. ..- .-.. . ... .- -. -.. ... --- -.. --- .. .- ..-. ..- .-.. .-.. -.-. --- -- -- .. - -- . -. - ·----· ... .-- .... .- - .. ·----· -- - .... .. -. -.- .. -. --. --- ..-. -.-- --- ..- .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. -. ·----· - --. . - - .... .. ... ..-. .-. --- -- .- -. -.-- --- - .... . .-. --. ..- -.-- .. .--- ..- ... - .-- .- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. -.-- --- ..- .... --- .-- .. ·----· -- ..-. . . .-.. .. -. --. --. --- - - .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- ..- -. -.. . .-. ... - .- -. -.. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-.. . - -.-- --- ..- -.. --- .-- -. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-. ..- -. .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. .- -. -.. -.. . ... . .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- -.-. .-. -.-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- ... .- -.-- --. --- --- -.. -... -.-- . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. .- .-.. .. . .- -. -.. .... ..- .-. - -.-- --- ..- .-- . ·----· ...- . -.- -. --- .-- -. . .- -.-. .... --- - .... . .-. ..-. --- .-. ... --- .-.. --- -. --. -.-- --- ..- .-. .... . .- .-. - ·----· ... -... . . -. .- -.-. .... .. -. --. --··-- -... ..- - -.-- --- ..- ·----· .-. . - --- --- ... .... -.-- - --- ... .- -.-- .. - .. -. ... .. -.. . --··-- .-- . -... --- - .... -.- -. --- .-- .-- .... .- - ·----· ... -... . . -. --. --- .. -. --. --- -. .-- . -.- -. --- .-- - .... . --. .- -- . .- -. -.. .-- . ·----· .-. . --. --- -. -. .- .--. .-.. .- -.-- .. - .- -. -.. .. ..-. -.-- --- ..- .- ... -.- -- . .... --- .-- .. ·----· -- ..-. . . .-.. .. -. --. -.. --- -. ·----· - - . .-.. .-.. -- . -.-- --- ..- ·----· .-. . - --- --- -... .-.. .. -. -.. - --- ... . . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-.. . - -.-- --- ..- -.. --- .-- -. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-. ..- -. .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. .- -. -.. -.. . ... . .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- -.-. .-. -.-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- ... .- -.-- --. --- --- -.. -... -.-- . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. .- .-.. .. . .- -. -.. .... ..- .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-.. . - -.-- --- ..- -.. --- .-- -. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-. ..- -. .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. .- -. -.. -.. . ... . .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- -.-. .-. -.-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- ... .- -.-- --. --- --- -.. -... -.-- . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. .- .-.. .. . .- -. -.. .... ..- .-. - -.-- --- ..- -·--· --- --- .... --··-- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -·--·- -·--· --- --- .... --··-- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -·--·- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . --··-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -·--· --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -·--·- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . --··-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -·--· --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -·--·- .-- . ·----· ...- . -.- -. --- .-- -. . .- -.-. .... --- - .... . .-. ..-. --- .-. ... --- .-.. --- -. --. -.-- --- ..- .-. .... . .- .-. - ·----· ... -... . . -. .- -.-. .... .. -. --. --··-- -... ..- - -.-- --- ..- ·----· .-. . - --- --- ... .... -.-- - --- ... .- -.-- .. - .. -. ... .. -.. . --··-- .-- . -... --- - .... -.- -. --- .-- .-- .... .- - ·----· ... -... . . -. --. --- .. -. --. --- -. .-- . -.- -. --- .-- - .... . --. .- -- . .- -. -.. .-- . ·----· .-. . --. --- -. -. .- .--. .-.. .- -.-- .. - .. .--- ..- ... - .-- .- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. -.-- --- ..- .... --- .-- .. ·----· -- ..-. . . .-.. .. -. --. --. --- - - .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- ..- -. -.. . .-. ... - .- -. -.. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-.. . - -.-- --- ..- -.. --- .-- -. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-. ..- -. .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. .- -. -.. -.. . ... . .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- -.-. .-. -.-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- ... .- -.-- --. --- --- -.. -... -.-- . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. .- .-.. .. . .- -. -.. .... ..- .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-.. . - -.-- --- ..- -.. --- .-- -. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-. ..- -. .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. .- -. -.. -.. . ... . .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- -.-. .-. -.-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- ... .- -.-- --. --- --- -.. -... -.-- . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. .- .-.. .. . .- -. -.. .... ..- .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- --. .. ...- . -.-- --- ..- ..- .--. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-.. . - -.-- --- ..- -.. --- .-- -. -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- .-. ..- -. .- .-. --- ..- -. -.. .- -. -.. -.. . ... . .-. - -.-- --- ..- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- -- .- -.- . -.-- --- ..- -.-. .-. -.-- -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- ... .- -.-- --. --- --- -.. -... -.-- . -. . ...- . .-. --. --- -. -. .- - . .-.. .-.. .- .-.. .. . .- -. -.. .... ..- .-. - -.-- --- ..-
23
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +35
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment. If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo), or the Firefox extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-listnook-overwrite). Then simply click on your username on Listnook, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use [RES](http://www.listnookenhancementsuite.com/)), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
35
Pentos Mar 31, 2016 +12
[Context TIFU thread.](https://www.listnook.com/r/tifu/comments/3grpdf/tifu_by_getting_listnook_banned_in_russia/) But was the entire Listnook site blocked in Russia for this or was it just the "content" as the Transparency Report states?
12
NobleHalcyon Mar 31, 2016 +38
I think there needs to be some post about awareness of people's posts here...I was an analyst for the USG and I can tell you that 99% of information collected about an individual is done so legally and without the knowledge of social media platforms or companies. I understand that people like to see these reports-but they really don't matter. The integrity of listnook when cooperating with authorities is far less important than what you actually-and very publicly-post on listnook.
38
TheJob Mar 31, 2016 +226
190 DMCA takedown requests in 2 months; that's much lower than I would have guessed. And only 5% of those requiring content to be taken down was also a (pleasant) surprise.
226
Gaget Mar 31, 2016 +166
How is this surprising? The only thing listnook hosts is thumbnail images and images for sublistnook CSS. Listnook just links to stuff. It isn't stored here. If your copyrighted content shows up "on listnook" it is likely hosted on imgur or youtube instead. You send your DMCA takedown request to them, not listnook.
166
TRL5 Mar 31, 2016 +80
Copy and pasting paywalled news articles is quite common IME... but I've never seen an organization bother to make listnook take them down.
80
osminog Mar 31, 2016 +58
Keith Law, a sports writer for ESPN insider has done it personally http://deadspin.com/keith-law-will-find-you-if-you-repost-his-espn-insider-1695950422
58
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +26
[deleted]
26
merreborn Mar 31, 2016 +19
They only received 176 in all of 2014. 190 in two months is a very large increase. But yeah, a lot of big web properties receive far more takedowns than ~100 per month.
19
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +27
As an Australian, I thank you for responding to requests from our government by telling them to go f*** themselves. I see you complied to two takedown requests due to defamation, though. Those probably came from Tony Abbott because he's a big-eared, money-grubbing d*****-canoe with a history of misogynistic intimidation and no respect for the Australian public. (All of the above is verifiably true, and therefore not classifiable as defamation).
27
advicedoge77 Mar 31, 2016 +51
/u/spez Listnook complied with only 26% of Russian takedown notices seems like that figure is off given you mentioned there were 28 other duplicate requests as well. Edit: if there were 39 requests, 10 were complied with and those 10 had 28 duplicates, that's either 38/39 or 10/11 complied with, depending on how you slice it. So that's either 97% or 91%, certainly not 26%.
51
rcm034 Mar 31, 2016 +24
Reading over it again after seeing your comment- They got 11 requests from Russia, with each one referencing a specific post. That's 11 affected posts (See how india numbers match up this way). 28 more requests were received which were duplicates of these 11. Of those 11 non-repeated requests, 10 were complied with and 1 was not. The duplicate requests were tossed out and thus not acted on, but more because it doesn't make sense to block something 2x than a refusal etc. Technically, this leaves 10/39 aka 26% complied with, with 10/11 affected posts being blocked. I can't really argue that they should list it a different way, since the other numbers would be even *less* clear. Maybe they could add a column for "% of targeted content blocked" or something. They gave us an explanation at the bottom, though, which covers everything with careful reading, so I wouldn't say it's really misleading or hiding anything. Edit: fixed a word Edit: 1 more note - IANAL but I imagine the reason the duplicate requests are counted with the refused requests is because they have to respond to each one. You already blocked x, so another request to block x is received and sent back with "No action will be taken. Reason: already did it" or something similar. They literally send back a response of "I'm not doing what this says because it doesn't apply" as part of the paperwork etc., so it's by definition a refused request.
24
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +290
[deleted]
290
iamapizza Mar 31, 2016 +84
A bit meta - have you been 'gagged' by governments in regards to certain information requests? In other words, is everything in this report or *almost* everything?
84
berlin-calling Mar 31, 2016 +26
Just sorta hijacking your comment to a link with more info on what a warrant canary is because I had no idea and assume others wouldn't as well: [Link](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq) >**What is a warrant canary?** > A warrant canary is a colloquial term for a regularly published statement that a service provider has not received legal process that it would be prohibited from saying it had received. Once a service provider does receive legal process, the speech prohibition goes into place, and the canary statement is removed. > Warrant canaries are often provided in conjunction with a transparency report, listing the process the service provider can publicly say it received over the course of a particular time period. The canary is a reference to the canaries used to provide warnings in coalmines, which would become sick before miners from carbon monoxide poisoning, warning of the danger.
26
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +74
Look for the *national security requests* heading in the [2014 report](https://www.listnook.com/wiki/transparency/2014) and then look up the meaning of [Warrant canary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary). Then look for a similar statement in the 2015 report. Might still just be them forgetting to put in the canary clause though.
74
NeonRedSharpie Mar 31, 2016 +113
You don't 'forget' something in a report like this. That's why we're seeing it on day 0 of Q2 instead of 2/1/16.
113
Olive_Jane Mar 31, 2016 +30
That really doesn't seem like something they'd accidentally forget. If they did, it probably would have been edited in by now.
30
WiglyWorm Mar 31, 2016 +19
https://www.listnook.com/r/announcements/comments/4cqyia/for_your_reading_pleasure_our_2015_transparency/d1koeqt?context=3 Read between the lines.
19
99639 Mar 31, 2016 +136
Yes they have been. You'll notice that the canary line was not included. This is the only method of letting us know that they were gagged. F*** this 1984 nsa shit.
136
amg Mar 31, 2016 +39
I don't remember 1984 being so... Secretive? The situation was far more apparent in 1984 than out here in The Realz.
39
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +14
They have to start off secretive and slowly reveal information so that people are merely unhappy instead of flat out angry and accept it without doing more than complaining on some Internet message board.
14
Santi871 Mar 31, 2016 +37
I'm bothered by the fact governments are legally allowed to silence others because it hinders companies' transparency efforts. You know shit's fucked when for-profit companies are more transparent than the damn government.
37
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +14
[deleted]
14
kraln Mar 31, 2016 +209
The canary is gone.
209
Wampawacka Mar 31, 2016 +45
So the answer is yes.
45
SylvainLacoste Mar 31, 2016 +9
Do you also hand out the passwords of the user accounts requested by the governments or are they encrypted? I personally use the same password for listnook and all my games (steam, guild wars) so im wondering if i should start using different passwords haha
9
Bensrob Mar 31, 2016 +10
Can't say for certain but I'd guess hashed and salted, but either way you you use different passwords for each. Pretty much the first thing that happens after anywhere gets hacked is the hackers try the username/password combinations on other sites to see how much can be compromised.
10
amunak Mar 31, 2016 +5
The passwords are most definitely all hashed and salted. And they aren't really important to security agencies. They care about the content, PMs and such. That doesn't mean that you should reuse passwords. Just get a password manager (KeePass, Lastpass, whatever). It's way, way more safe. *And* convenient.
5
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +119
[deleted]
119
Albolynx Mar 31, 2016 +55
The joke is that there is transparency.
55
xahhfink6 Mar 31, 2016 +40
Things like this really show how any online company should be handling user information. I also think that Mods everywhere deserve a shout-out for doing their own policing of content, keeping this as a place where free ideas can be spread without the government having to get involved.
40
flounder19 Mar 31, 2016 +29
So did you guys just stop posting to /r/chillingeffects or has there really not been a takedown request in 6 months?
29
MisterWoodhouse Mar 31, 2016 +16
Looks like listnook stopped participating in chillingeffects logging. The last item in the Lumen database is from August 19th, 2015 (corresponds with the second to last /r/chillingeffects post).
16
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +23
[deleted]
23
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +87
[deleted]
87
[deleted] Mar 31, 2016 +55
I mean, would you rather that they don't give information on CP sharing and shit like that? I'm willing to be that's a high amount of the police records requests.
55
[deleted] Apr 1, 2016 +5
It's a safe bet to say the NSA or FBI or *someone* in the government is reading this thread carefully. I have a message for the lowlife shithead spending his time reading Listnook posts and feeling important about his job, f*** off. F*** right the f*** off. If you don't believe in what you're doing then grow a set of balls and get a new job. If you *do* believe you're doing important work and you're helping to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, well you wouldn't have so many enemies if you didn't f****** spy on everyone all the god damn time. F*** right the f*** off you low life piece of shit fat disgusting slob who has accomplished nothing in life and who's kids will grow to resent them and wife will leave them. To make sure my comment gets flagged by the government and read: arson bomb kill murder fire shoot guns nuclear North Korea Snowden president Obama senator governor Jihad Allah Islam Muslim Baghdad Iraq ISIS Taliban 9/11 planes anthrax Occupy assassinate sniper IED explosive Israel Saudi Arabia Rothschild Rockefeller Jews attack sabotage Barbara Streisand
5
← Back to Board