· 199 comments · Save ·
Announcements Apr 3, 2017 at 7:58 PM

It's that time of year again. We just published our 2016 Transparency Report.

Posted by spez

Hello Everyone, We just posted our [2016 Transparency Report](https://www.listnook.com/wiki/transparency/2016). It details government and law-enforcement-agency requests for private information about our users. We publish it each year, and you can find previous versions [here](https://www.listnook.com/wiki/transparency/). Our goals in publishing the report are to demonstrate Listnook’s commitment to remaining a place that encourages authentic conversation and to share with you the ways in which we work to protect the privacy of our users. Generally, the types of requests we receive are subpoenas, court orders, search warrants, and emergency requests. We require all requests to be legally valid, and, in 2016, we did not produce records in response to approximately 40% of them, which is on par with previous years. Another way in which we stand up on behalf of users is through participation in [amicus briefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae). Basically, we say we support a party and their position. In tech, it is one of the few areas in which many companies work together to send a strong message to courts. We participated in a couple amicus briefs this year, including one on [behalf of Facebook](https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/In-re-381-Search-Warrants-Amicus-Brief.pdf) in the state of New York, who was served with a bulk warrant for account information, photos, private messages, and other information for 381 individuals. Listnook joined with a number of other tech companies in supporting Facebook’s arguments that questioned the legal validity of the bulk search warrant and the associated gag order which prevented Facebook from notifying its users. Again, in support of Facebook, we joined a group to fight against a Section 230 ruling in the state of California. Section 230 essentially allows platforms like Listnook to exist because it grants broad immunity to online service providers from harms arising out of third-party content. In this case, the trial court had held that Jason Cross a/k/a Michael Knight (“Knight”) could seek to hold Facebook liable for failing to remove third-party content that Knight found objectionable. Amici [filed a response](http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/1378/) in support of Facebook and to argue against the trial court’s order finding that California right of publicity claims fall outside the broad scope of Section 230’s immunity. Thank you for reading. I hope that you take this report as a sign of our commitment to your privacy and trust. I’ll answer any questions that I can, but please understand I can’t always be completely candid when it comes to legal matters. Steve (spez)
🚩 Report this post

199 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
iNeverQuiteWas Apr 3, 2017 +2873
I have a question regarding the safeguards you have in place (generally speaking) when it comes to illegal content on Listnook. I'm not very fluent in the law, but are you a mandatory reporter in that, should illegal content be found on your site, you are responsible for reporting it to the appropriate authorities? If so, how do you go about handling that? Listnook is very large, so I'm assuming there would be automatic reporting? If this is the case, how do you reduce false positives? If not, how do you handle such a large load?
2873
spez Apr 3, 2017 +3400
> you are responsible for reporting it to the appropriate authorities? It depends on the nature of the request. For something like child p**********, yes, we have to report. For something like how to make drugs, we don't. It doesn't mean we won't see a subpoena, though. > If so, how do you reduce false positives? If not, how do you handle such a large load? It's a lot of work, to be honest. We don't automatically do anything in this area. If it involves turning over information or removing content, we consider carefully.
3400
DragoonDM Apr 3, 2017 +346
> It's a lot of work, to be honest. We don't automatically do anything in this area. Have you considered implementing automated hash comparison? I know a lot of large companies use this technique to detect child p**********, by hashing uploaded images and comparing it to a database of hashes for known images (which I believe is maintained by FBI or some other government agency). I'm not super familiar with the technical details, but I assume the hashing algorithm they use is designed to be sort of "fuzzy" with the recognition, so that it can't be fooled by changing the color of a single pixel or something.
346
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +153
[deleted]
153
NomThemAll Apr 4, 2017 +59
Wow, that's really neat. And the fact that they donated it to Project Vic.
59
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +30
Does that work? I would've imagined that if you were distributing child p*** you would ebcrypt it or embed it into another file, like 4chan sink threads or something.
30
fuckCARalarms Apr 4, 2017 +14
Encryption would make it hard to access by other predators and embedding it within another file would just be awkward and could be used if a lot of people all knew how to access it but that'd require some form of standard took to hide and unhide it or some method they would all agree on. Ordinary hashing would work great, unless they knew about having, then changing 1 pixel would make the hash entirely new and not related to the exact same image (bar the one pixel) However they use a technique that chops the image up, resizes it and turns the image black and white so they aren't dealing with so many variables and have more hashes to compare against. It's a really decent method as it can be used virtually anywhere. Its really simple and quick, automatic system that requires no illegal content to work on company systems, easy to update by just adding new hashes. Obviously it doesn't entirely stop or solve issues but itd catch out any technologically unsavvy pedophiles or any who weren't particularly careful, even ones that didn't know the system was functioning on the platform they use.
14
DragoonDM Apr 3, 2017 +65
Ah, but people are often quite dumb. No form of security will ever be 100% foolproof, so it's more about making it more difficult and catching as many cases as possible.
65
mabhatter Apr 3, 2017 +29
Until recently Listnook didn't actually STORE any images or content on its own servers, I'm sure to avoid such things. They would have ZERO reason to take an extra step and send a bot to follow posted links.. that invites all kinds of trouble.
29
goes-on-rants Apr 4, 2017 +13
Now I'm mildly curious whether Listnook is issued subpeonas for content hosted on Imgur, and whether Imgur as the main content provider for Listnook is responsible for implementing this detection.
13
sPoonamus Apr 4, 2017 +7
Id assume the subpoena is more for user details and there's a matching subpoena for Imgur based on each offending url. Listnook can't be responsible for all of Imgur as well but most of it I'm sure considering how widely adopted it is by listnookors. I'd also imagine this problem is a big reason that Listnook wants to start hosting images itself
7
JamEngulfer221 Apr 4, 2017 +23
Technically they actually do. They store the little thumbnail images you get next to posts.
23
phx-au Apr 4, 2017 +8
At a guess their underlying storage provider (S3, whatever) would use this. Unless Listnook actually run their own servers (edit: for storage), but I'd figure this isn't economical.
8
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +123
[deleted]
123
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +30
That depends. If you say, "Here's how to make meth, guys," then sure, that's legal; Hell, Wikipedia does that, more or less. On the other hand, if you say, "Hey, you guys should totally make meth! Here's the recipe that I use; it's great, I promise. Try it!" then that's solicitation to commit a felony, which is itself a felony. Furthermore, if anywhere in your post you admit that you've used the recipe in question (as in the second example I gave), then that gives the cops probable cause to subpoena your IP address and then search your home for drugs.
30
koproller Apr 3, 2017 +729
Sorry for being offtopic, but I've been wondering this for a while: Do you guys have safeguards (and limits) for when a sub is being used to radicalize a group? Is there a plan in the event that Listnook is being/will be used to make certain groups in some countries more militant and are you keeping on eye on potential dangers?
729
snallygaster Apr 3, 2017 +33
Calls to violence are against listnook's rules, but listnook is one of the biggest platforms online for recruitment and organization for various radical groups and has contributed significantly to why the current political landscape in the states is so polarized. It doesn't seem like there's much done about it aside from removing subs and banning users who make frequent calls to violence, but that really doesn't do much to fix the radicalization problem given that many of those groups are perfectly fine with keeping the calls to violence low while spreading their radical message.
33
-popgoes Apr 3, 2017 +190
I'd imagine anything, on any sublistnook, that implies a plan of damage or threatening behaviour will be removed or controlled manually by admins. That's just against Listnook rules.
190
koproller Apr 3, 2017 +225
It can be more subtle, but equally as dangerous. A sub where they joke about "hanging" the opposition, constant and extreme demonization of the opposition, seeing hatred for governments (or its agencies), and political and/or religious subs who try to convince their users to buy weapons and to always carry a weapon.
225
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +985
[deleted]
985
koproller Apr 3, 2017 +843
You are right. But I pussyfoot around it for a reason. Imagine a sub where there was a growing blind hatred for Democrats and certain Republicans, a sub to hate the free press of the States. A place with 24/7 posts about why you shouldn't trust US intelligence agencies. The same place just started a hype about buying guns. Now imagine this sub to be /r/islam. A Muslim sub about being Anti-Christians. Anti-Press. About not to believe the Intelligence Community, they all lie. Hanging opposition. A sub that wants Muslim to always buy and carry guns. Can you imagine how fast listnook would ban them? Especially after the FBI announced that there might be strong ties between online Islamic communities and Iran. After a report that stated that Iran intended to use the community to disrupt the USA. Listnook would dismantle the sub in a heartbeat, and rightfully so. That's why I didn't mention /r/T_D. Tried to keep it about a (perhaps foreign influenced) radicalization that is a slam-dunk for a ban if it was any community other than T_D.
843
Tayfloor Apr 3, 2017 +101
You deserve gold many times over for this comment. You couldn't be more on target. If the "radical sublistnook" isn't made up of groups of people that have been demonized (in the US), it will not be banned.
101
debaser11 Apr 3, 2017 +109
The phrase 'physical removal' has sprang up there a lot lately referring to what to do with left wingers. If you search t_d for it you'll notice there's been a big increase in using the phrase in the last few weeks.
109
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +31
[deleted]
31
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +57
https://np.listnook.com/r/The_Donald/comments/624pyb/antifa_be_careful_what_you_wish_for/ Here's a link to a T_D mod stickying a link to, and encouraging users to visit, a sub that's sole purpose is a call to violence and about murdering liberals. But remember, "T_D is never ever racist or violent or extreme and is just a poor persecuted little freedom of speech sub"
57
koproller Apr 3, 2017 +60
Jesus Christ. >Welcome to /r/Physical_Removal. This is the sublistnook for highlighting the insidiousness and **repulsiveness of those who threaten our liberty** and peaceul way of life, a place for peaceful non leftists to discuss **defense methods against the hordes of thugs like liberals, socialists, commies, feminists, BLM, and radicalized kebabs** who wish to initiate force against the peaceful i.e enslave or murder, and seize our private property via violent revolution, violent jihad, terrorism, or over time via an ever expanding bureaucracy, and all powerful government etc. Please note our beliefs are purely for DEFENSE. Humans should defend themselves and their property to the highest degree, thus be able to live peacefully, trade their property, and be left alone. If you are a leftist and wish to avoid being evicted from society, all you need to do is leave people and their property alone Defense? Yeah, sure. Jesus f*** f***. 3rd up voted post there is a ["Physical Removal Starter Kit"](https://np.listnook.com/r/Physical_Removal/comments/5xo7ku/rphysical_removal_starter_kit/). Top comment. >Go to protests you know they will be at, dress the same as they do and use their methods against them. Use the coverage of the crowd. They won't know who is friend or foe. Second top comment. >Beating the hell out of Antifa --- Priceless. /u/spez, /u/powerlanguage, /u/sodypop. At least read this sub. It's a sub being stickied by T_D mods. At this point is almost impossible to argue that /r/T_D isn't actively trying to radicalizing their base.
60
OwlMeasuringTool Apr 3, 2017 +53
Okay, we all know what sub you are talking about. You don't have to act coy about it. /r/rarepuppers should have been blocked from day 1.
53
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +545
> For something like how to make drugs, we don't phew! ... would you say it's not a high priority?
545
XA36 Apr 3, 2017 +268
Likely someone looking at making drugs is being sketchy but learning how drugs are made doesn't mean you're making drugs and committing a crime. Someone posting kiddie p*** is undoubtedly committing a crime though.
268
southernbenz Apr 3, 2017 +235
Using naked kids as slave labor to make drugs... would this be a gray area? Asking for a friend.
235
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +566
Let's play "How many lists can I put myself on in one sentence"
566
Spartancoolcody Apr 3, 2017 +49
So if I said I wanted to use a bomb to blow up the CIA and assassinate the president, then hijack an airplane to escape, that would be a bad thing? What if I also had ALL the drugs? Also child p***... not really, that's way worse than everything else I said. Also ISIS, terrorism, Bin Laden, and taking water bottles onto airplanes. How many lists am I on? Which ones have I forgotten? Edit: Also I torrented the battle plans to the death star. Look out Emperor Trump!
49
lemonteaparty Apr 3, 2017 +56
And getting put on those same lists for just replying to said sentence.
56
Tommymair Apr 3, 2017 +18
Hey do you guys think ill get Donald Trump in trouble for looking at child P********** in his bedroom last night? The secret service guy lets me in if I blow him. Their wifi is really fast and i got kinda horny after the ISIS Commander skype call and there isn't much goats to f*** here in D.C.
18
tannertech Apr 3, 2017 +63
Thank you for not automating this, most platforms are leaning towards bots taking stuff down and it's not good.
63
Poemi Apr 3, 2017 +67
> how do you handle such a large load? Now that you mention it, Spez *is* overdue for an appearance in /r/Rule34...
67
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +436
[removed]
436
spez Apr 3, 2017 +523
Yes, I expect the number to continue to grow. For context, check out the scale of [Google's report](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/). > What can we as users do or know to have a better peace of mind when it comes to our privacy on Listnook? We only know what you tell us, and we deliberately ask for little. IP addresses, which are a little harder for you to control, we only store for 100 days. When it comes to privacy, I do believe there is some amount of personal responsibility and education required, but we try to be helpful where we can.
523
FrostSalamander Apr 4, 2017 +34
For the lazy: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/ 44,943 requests for 2016.
34
FluentInTypo Apr 3, 2017 +140
You used to only store the IP addy someone signed up with (as of sometime last year) Has that changed?
140
_adverse_yawn_ Apr 3, 2017 +119
Well they show you the [IP addresses](https://www.listnook.com/account-activity) your account has been accessed from in recent history, so I'm going to go with... yes
119
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +58
I'm pretty sure that's been there for years. So it doesn't seem like a recent change.
58
Jakeable Apr 3, 2017 +10
They've been storing the IP addresses you access listnook with since at least 2011 (according to the [open source version of listnook](https://github.com/listnook/listnook/commit/e76d96d5b4adc145cf14d80500f08f9b7deb5f8c)). edit: removed weird wording
10
[deleted] Apr 4, 2017 +22
Hi Spez, I can't help but notice you didn't tell anyone about that canary you killed a couple of years ago-- the one where, when a user deleted an account, it said "deleted", but where it now says "deactivated", because you keep that user's data available to law enforcement indefinitely without telling anyone. I also can't help but notice you didn't admit that Listnook hands over user information to law enforcement, without a warrant, regularly. Why did you leave those two little tidbits out, spez?
22
[deleted] Apr 4, 2017 +12
I mean... That's the definition of a canary. Generally they can't come out and say "we're being made to do things", only say "we're not being made to do things" then stop saying it when it isn't true anymore.
12
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +50
[deleted]
50
BLACK-AND-DICKER Apr 3, 2017 +1953
Hey, /u/spez: What exactly is an* "Emergency Disclosure Request"? Also, > **Request 2:** > * A litigant issued a subpoena to Listnook seeking his or her own account information. * Listnook advised that the user could request that Listnook provide them with their own information directly. The litigant subsequently withdrew the subpoena. lol. Edit: a word
1953
spez Apr 3, 2017 +1028
> Emergency Disclosure Requests can be made to Listnook to compel us to disclose user account information in certain circumstances when we believe disclosure is necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily harm to a person. When notified of a potential emergency situation by law enforcement, we require law enforcement to provide enough information to satisfy Listnook that the standard is met, and further require that the law enforcement officer certify the request in writing.
1028
DontmindthePanda Apr 3, 2017 +378
Can you give a (fictional) example of such a situation?
378
dachaf17 Apr 3, 2017 +301
Not an admin but I believe it would go along these lines: Person A makes post saying "I'm going to kill myself tonight at 9. I already have the pills. This is it." Person B sees post and wisely reports it to police Police file an emergency request for location information to Listnook If there is enough information (not clear on what's required) Listnook releases location info to the police Police pay Person A a visit, saving their life. Edit: some other examples of potential emergency requests would be "I'm going to go shoot up __________ mall" or "Tomorrow, I'm going to murder my dad" or "My daughter refuses to clean up her mess, if she doesn't I'm going to beat her" and the like. In counselling ethics, a counsellor is required to report whenever a person is going to cause harm to themselves or to others, and I would assume that these emergency situations are similar.
301
[deleted] Apr 4, 2017 +17
I work at a 911 center, so we have to occasionally do emergency disclosure requests. Never done one for listnook, but I've done a few for cell phone providers. If you're using a newer phone, we may get GPS coordinates, but that's not always the case. If I believe there is a life/death situation, I can call a special security line for your provider and get recent pings from towers, or get subscriber information which may help. It's really not something we take lightly, and the phone companies are hesitant, too. There's still paperwork to fill out, but we don't need an official warrant if it's a life/death emergency. It's not really common, either. I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to get an emergency disclosure. Usually it's something like a clearly physical dispute going on, and there's no GPS or local number history to go off of. The provider's information is a big help when we actually have to do it. Anything that's not life or death generally requires a warrant. Stolen phone? Phone company will only release tracking data with a warrant. We don't handle that at 911, only life/death requests.
17
yendrush Apr 3, 2017 +460
Someone threatens a school. Someone says they are planning to kill their girlfriend. etc. At least that is what I assume. Similar to psychologists.
460
Pekansylvestre Apr 3, 2017 +147
> Someone threatens a school. I'm a mod and we had to deal with this. I can confirm.
147
Holicone Apr 3, 2017 +14
Not affiliated with listnook in anyway, but I imagine it to be something like /u/DontmindthePanda posted on /r/whatever that he is going to kill himself in one hour. So law enforcement can emergency request all details regarding you, to potentially find you.
14
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +702
[deleted]
702
orochi Apr 3, 2017 +719
I know listnook admins sometimes take action (though they wont say what) when they encounter suicidal users on their platform. I wish you would include when/if you notified authorities for those users in your transparency report. I think it would be beneficial to see that.
719
spez Apr 3, 2017 +982
What happens in these cases is we notify law enforcement and ask them to send a formal request. Those formal requests are counted in the report.
982
glr123 Apr 3, 2017 +1203
Hi /u/spez, mod of /r/science here. According to your detailed report, you had 19 emergency requests. That seems really low, sadly. In /r/science, we encounter suicidal users regularly. In fact, we've even [designed bots to parse our comments looking for phrases that might imply a user is suicidal](http://i.imgur.com/lZ5d2w3.png). If it looks like a positive hit, **we inform listnook ASAP.** Given that you only received 19 requests, can you provide how many times law enforcement agencies were contacted? I am curious what % those 19 requests represent.
1203
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +464
I'm curious as to why a sub like /r/science would have so many suicidal users? I can definitely see a sub such as /r/opiates or /r/drugs but /r/science having a relatively substantial amount of suicidal users mystifies me.
464
shiruken Apr 3, 2017 +743
As a default sublistnook, we have a much larger userbase than any of those sublistnooks. Combine that with our frequent discussions about physical and mental health and there is an enormous population of potentially suicidal users.
743
hulkamaniagonewild Apr 3, 2017 +280
If I hear one more person tell me that dinosaurs had feathers I'm going to end it all.
280
cunningham_law Apr 3, 2017 +24
"Are they buying it?" "[I think they're buying it](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dinosaurs)."
24
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +115
Ahhhh that makes sense, thanks.
115
Borax Apr 3, 2017 +47
In /r/drugs there are a few such posts a month and we generally enlist the help of /r/suicidewatch. Shoutout to them, they very much pick up where our community doesn't feel confident to
47
SirT6 Apr 3, 2017 +29
And as a follow-up, if I understand your report correctly, it seems that the 19 times law enforcement requested user acount information Listnook only provided it in 3 cases. Can you help me understand this seeming discrepancy? If Listnook was concerned enough to report this to LE, and then LE requests more info - why wouldn't Listnook provide it?
29
Syrdon Apr 3, 2017 +20
Not all of those requests would be initiated by Listnook. I could see something in /r/$my_town, report it to the local cops and they could make the request from Listnook. Listnook could reasonably decide that both me and the cops were reacting to nothing and then not grant the request. Or simply that the request from the cops was too broad.
20
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +22
Off topic, but I am incredibly interested in that bot! I don't know enough about programming to decipher anything from the bot itself, but can I get a high-level rundown of how it works, what it looks for, etc?
22
glr123 Apr 3, 2017 +42
It's quite simple actually. It uses [PRAW](https://praw.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) to scan through all the comments in /r/science posted in 1 hour blocks. If it compares sentences in the comment to a dictionary of potential hits (e.g. "suicide", "I want this to end", etc). If it finds a hit, it sends the link to the comment and it's text to a Slack channel we have for moderators. Also, it databases the comment just in case it scans a submission again and hits the same comment twice. It also has some features for disabling it from certain submissions via commands in Slack, that send a request to my server to stop the bot for that particular submission. Sometimes we have submissions on suicide, so having the word "suicide" be a trigger can result in us getting hundreds of messages. In this case, we turn off the bot for that particular thread.
42
gramathy Apr 3, 2017 +14
That looks like requests from law enforcement for rapid identification of a user for a purpose such as this. If listnook can't identify them reasonably well there's no practical reason for the request to be submitted as an IP can't reliably identify the person unless there is other identifying information on the account.
14
sonofaresiii Apr 3, 2017 +12
ip **alone** can't identify someone, but it can be a part of what identifies someone, or points cops in the right direction to investigate
12
shiruken Apr 3, 2017 +186
Another mod of /r/science here, can we get some details on the user behavior the admins consider concerning enough to warrant contacting law enforcement? I've personally notified the admins about several dozen suicidal users with absolutely no knowledge of how things get handled from that point forward. The fact that only 19 requests were made for information is a little disconcerting.
186
SideProjectTim Apr 3, 2017 +10
You have to account to though that all Listnook can do is forward the info to law enforcement - those agencies may or may not choose to submit a formal request to listnook.
10
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +31
How do you guys tell between actual suicidal people and stuff like /r/2meirl4meirl ? Cause I mean, I joke about it way too much TBH, but I don't really consider it or anything. Do you guys deal with that at all?
31
iamastrange1oop Apr 3, 2017 +452
What is Listnook's official position on providing user data to advertisers and other data aggregators? What type of data and methods of data collection are considered fair game, and which are currently in use?
452
spez Apr 3, 2017 +682
We don't share individual browsing habits with advertisers. You can read the full details in our [Privacy Policy](https://www.listnook.com/help/privacypolicy/).
682
Rhamni Apr 3, 2017 +41
Related: Other than our subscriptions, comments, posts and votes, which obviously persist, how much information does listnook store about our use of the site? Can you go back and see what pages a user has visited, which links they have clicked, etc?
41
Elijr Apr 4, 2017 +15
You're able to go and look at which pages you have clicked on yourself, so I would say yes.
15
Headcap Apr 3, 2017 +260
thank god noone knows i browse /r/cospenis NSFW daily
260
justchaddles Apr 3, 2017 +83
Me: "I've been on Listnook for 20mins and haven't seen a single p****"... Listnook: sorry about that, have 100 penises. In costume.
83
_Guinness Apr 3, 2017 +111
HEY GUYS /U/HEADCAP BROWSES /R/COSPENIS (NSFW) DAILY
111
WhackTheSquirbos Apr 3, 2017 +113
/u/spez I would like to report this user for breaching the privacy policy
113
goalkeepercon Apr 3, 2017 +32
I'd like to report /u/WhackTheSquirbos and /u/goalkeepercon for breaching the generally accepted no-tattle-taling agreement.
32
abodyweightquestion Apr 3, 2017 +1669
You had 5 requests from the UK Govt. Are you able to say whether you complied fully with the requests (eg. you were requested but ultimately did not give information), and are you able to say more on each case?
1669
spez Apr 3, 2017 +2685
We didn't turn over any information for these requests
2685
TiagoTiagoT Apr 3, 2017 +83
Hypothetically, could they force you to claim you didn't turn over any information, when you have actually turned in some information?
83
curtmack Apr 4, 2017 +30
While the US and UK do have extradition treaties with each other, it is unlikely either country would attempt to enforce a gag order that way, as it would be infeasible: **Spez:** "Hey guys! The UK government told us to provide information on a user with a binding gag order!" **UK:** "That's bollocks, we did no such thing. *On a completely unrelated note*, we're asking the United States government to extradite Spez so we can prosecute him for *nothing that has to do with gag orders*."
30
saxattax Apr 4, 2017 +97
AFAIK under current U.S. precedent, the government can compel non-speech (gag order) but they can't compel speech. This is why [warrant canaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) are a thing.
97
gameryamen Apr 4, 2017 +118
Speaking of which, listnook's canary is gone. (Don't expect any discussion about this from admins though. Not out of conspiracy, but because not being able to talk about it is exactly the case the canary is designed to signal.) Edit for clarity: It disappeared about a year ago. https://www.justsecurity.org/30410/bye-bye-birdie-listnooks-warrant-canary-disappears/
118
V2Blast Apr 4, 2017 +40
Yeah, people pointed it out after they released last year's transparency report.
40
abodyweightquestion Apr 3, 2017 +541
Are you able to say which Govt department requested them, and/or why?
541
madmaxturbator Apr 3, 2017 +1986
Department for magical creatures and potions history, I believe.
1986
everred Apr 3, 2017 +430
Department of Stopping S*** Funtime Stuff
430
ApoIIoCreed Apr 3, 2017 +242
The Ministry of Truth. Some posts about the Party were doubleplusungood.
242
ParagonPatriot Apr 3, 2017 +876
The request of user account information seems to have gone up year-to-year. Do you feel it will continue that trend through 2017 and beyond? (2014: 55 request, 2015: 98 request, 2016: 170 request).
876
spez Apr 3, 2017 +1231
Almost certainly. As we grow, we expect the number of these requests to grow as well.
1231
greyjackal Apr 3, 2017 +176
As a curiosity, has the growth of requests been inline with user increase?
176
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +79
[deleted]
79
greyjackal Apr 3, 2017 +26
That's what I was driving at - is the increase due to their simply being more people on the site, thus more people to be *liable* to be investigated for whatever reason, or is it that agencies are becoming more aware of the platform as a whole, thus directing more requests this way as a matter of course. I don't think I elucidated that particularly clearly, but hopefully it makes sense.
26
Realtrain Apr 3, 2017 +28
Makes sense to me. I wonder how many requests Listnook gets compared to other websites of it's size.
28
-eDgAR- Apr 3, 2017 +579
Any update on 2FA for accounts? This whole talk about privacy reminded me I haven't heard anything in a while
579
spez Apr 3, 2017 +496
Yes, pretty sure it's on the roadmap for this quarter. Our focus the past couple of quarters has been to identify accounts that are likely to be taken over and protecting those (usually by issuing password resets).
496
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +318
Hey, sorry to rain on any parades, but as a mod of /r/help, we see a staggering number of people who get password reset emails that are already expired when they click them. You guys heard that? We get 1-3 reports of that a day which is a lot in /r/help
318
spez Apr 3, 2017 +362
I believe there was a bug related to this that is now fixed. If it's still an issue, please let me know.
362
PlNG Apr 3, 2017 +88
My account was hijacked some time ago, and quite "silently" began having sessions from locations around the world as I was using my account. There was activity in my "account activity" page but I didn't get any notification in that regards to that new info. I'm a little more diligent about checking that now, but it would've been nice to have a notice about geographic anomalies appearing once listnook was accessed from my usual locations. 2FA would be nice, but if that gets pushed down the road I feel like a notification from my usual browsing sessions would be more effective and quicker to implement short-term. Edit I don't really want 2FA for *every* session, but for something out of the geographic norm would also be fantastic.
88
diab0lus Apr 3, 2017 +29
2FA and a persistent cookie for each browser and each device with a "someone just logged in from... Is that you?" email when an unfamiliar device uses the account would be awesome.
29
theflamesweregolfin Apr 3, 2017 +3483
If someone were to anonymously post the copyrighted recipe for mulan szechuan mcnugget sauce, and you received a request from the copyright holder to take it down, would you comply?
3483
Reacher_Said_Nothing Apr 3, 2017 +175
For most cases, recipes cannot be copyrighted. See Publications International, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp. >“The identification of ingredients necessary for the preparation of each dish is a statement of facts.” >“[The] recipes’ directions for preparing the assorted dishes fall squarely within the class of subject matter specifically excluded from copyright protection by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).” *However*, "chemical formulas" can be patented. Novel and creative descriptions *of* recipes (IE a long winded story about how your grandma used to make this Mulan sauce when you were a kid) can be copyrighted. But most importantly, **trade secrets** can be protected. The difference is, if a recipe were copyrighted or patented, and you either shared it without fair use or tried to profit from it, even if you thought you came up with it on your own, it wouldn't matter, and you could be liable. However, trade secrets are not protected from independent discovery - if you happen to come up with what you think is the Mulan sauce, and it tastes functionally exactly the same, and there is no evidence that you stole it from the business, you're in the clear.
175
[deleted] Apr 4, 2017 +10
You forgot one key thing, once its not a secret, its not a secret. Meaning further dissemination (2nd, 3rd party etc.) is in the clear as long as the first dissemination was public. Thats why companies go through great lengths to keep things secret, well beyond just the threat of legal action.
10
spez Apr 3, 2017 +2559
Yes, if it was a valid copyright request, that's what the DMCA requires. We could push back, but our appetite for defending you all has limits.
2559
BlueBokChoy Apr 3, 2017 +798
> We could push back, but our appetite for defending you all has limits. I mean, it's not the reference we're going for, but it is a solid pun. 7.7/10
798
Jugg3rnaut Apr 3, 2017 +1211
> We could push back, but our appetite for defending you all has limits. The feeling is mutual I'm sure
1211
vinng86 Apr 3, 2017 +257
I doubt it's in Listnook's interest to go down over mulan szechuan mcnugget sauce, but maybe it's really that good!
257
nothanksillpass Apr 3, 2017 +25
You gotta decide to draw a line in the sand somewhere, bro
25
fadhero Apr 3, 2017 +38
Recipes are generally not given copyright protection. [Source](https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html)
38
Xheotris Apr 3, 2017 +9
It's true! Recipes have to be patented, and usually aren't. However, the exact wording of the body of the instructions can sometimes fall under copyright if it's 'creative' enough. Basically, you can safely copy an unpatented recipe if you just restate the instructions in your own words. Source: Worked at a publishing house that had a cookbook imprint.
9
Ehlmaris Apr 3, 2017 +999
Is there any way for users to determine whether a request was made for information pertaining to their account/activity?
999
spez Apr 3, 2017 +1751
Unless there is a non-disclosure order with the request, we always PM the user.
1751
B-Knight Apr 3, 2017 +1122
> Unless there is a non-disclosure order with the request Great. Now they're all gonna attach a non-disclosure order. You had *one* job, Spez. One!
1122
IHateKn0thing Apr 3, 2017 +9
If the Feds made a request, it'll have a non-disclosure order. But they won't tell us about it here, either. Because of the federal non-disclosure order. Otherwise, no company is going to try to obtain one of those, because it would be virtually impossible to get a judge to sign off on that.
9
Chris266 Apr 3, 2017 +208
They all already do... I bet they have contacted a total of 0 users.
208
LiveAGoodStory Apr 3, 2017 +220
I remember seeing a mod of a dark net market saying he was contacted by listnook to inform him the FBI had subpoenaed his account and asked for all his login and startup information including IPs, personal information and logs of his account I'll try n find it Edit: https://www.listnook.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/30tudk/psa_5_listnook_accounts_subpoenaed_by_ice/
220
skarby Apr 3, 2017 +19
This guy got contacted: https://www.listnook.com/r/legaladvice/comments/62f2ud/us_tn_a_very_large_corporation_has_subpoenaed/?st=J12N8OFM&sh=330830b9
19
Ehlmaris Apr 3, 2017 +365
Ah, cool. Guess that means I'm either safe, or screwed so bad that there was a non-disclosure order! :D
365
rootusercyclone Apr 3, 2017 +108
I'm guessing most orders have a non-disclosure order, however
108
Smetsnaz Apr 3, 2017 +50
I would assume most of the requests that are more serious in nature (child p***, terrorism, etc) are almost guaranteed to have a non-disclosure order.
50
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +101
[deleted]
101
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +125
How do you plan on improving communication with mods, and general tools in the near future? generally curious on what might be in store that would make our lives easier.
125
spez Apr 3, 2017 +155
Sure. We can always improve, but here are a few examples: * We're dialing up our presence on r/modsupport * Our goal is to keep ticket response times under 12 hours (our average is less than this) * We just released the first version of [mod tools for mobile](https://www.listnook.com/r/modnews/comments/60w4x6/mod_tools_available_in_the_mobile_apps/) * For big site features, e.g. the redesign, sublistnook rules, post-to-profile, we work closely with mods during development e: typo
155
MajorParadox Apr 3, 2017 +50
I know these new features for the mobile app are important, but can there please be a push to fix big problems with the app since its launch? Copied from another comment: >Please, please, please fix the formatting issues. \ 's, \^'s, *'s show up all over and it's been like that since day one. It makes readers think the author just doesn't know what they are doing or even that the sublistnook is broken. >Also, the lack of an "open in browser" is probably the #1 reason I still don't use the official app on my phone. If I need a tab open for whatever reason (research for a comment, performing mod duties, etc), the only way now is to copy the link, open the browser myself, open a new tab, and paste. Thanks! The first issue is huge for story-based sublistnooks. Writers rely on formatting to help their work read certain ways. It'd be great if it can display the same way as on desktop. What's worse is it makes it look like their fault when they may never have used the app at all. The second issue is a fundamental workaround that helps alleviate the age old problem: "Sorry, can't, on mobile."
50
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +165
Since I'm working on making our monthly report for /r/pics now, have you seen the small reports we write up each month? I like these logs from listnook and hope listnook moderators like myself will start their own small scale efforts to increase transparency "At home" edit: [link to our February report](https://www.listnook.com/r/pics/comments/5wzu6m/february_2017_rpics_transparency_report/)
165
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +141
[deleted]
141
spez Apr 3, 2017 +192
I mention this elsewhere, but part of our strategy has been to store as little as possible to minimize surface area. However, it's not practical to store nothing (e.g. IPs and emails), and we may ask for more down the road to enable other features (e.g. friends). Where we can, we want to give you the ability to choose how you participate.
192
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +109
[deleted]
109
Firefoxx336 Apr 3, 2017 +92
I just want to draw attention to this for anyone else who is concerned about the changes to accounts, making them more like profiles. Spez is talking about "friends" as a feature ~~in the works~~ slated for further development. Listnook appears to be going full-on social media. Edit: Apparently there is already a friends feature. I've been active on this account for 7 years, I've never seen it. If accounts get profile and cover pictures, it's reasonable to expect that feature will become more prominent. Perhaps we are farther into the social media-fication of listnook than I realized.
92
j8sadm632b Apr 3, 2017 +17
Isn't friends a *current* feature that I've never heard anyone talk about or seen them use? Edit: I think maybe it's RES but since everyone has used that since forever I thought it was an official listnook feature
17
isUsername Apr 3, 2017 +16
Not only that, but identifying and preventing spam also requires logging of identifying information.
16
meme-com-poop Apr 3, 2017 +9
> we may ask for more down the road to enable other features (e.g. friends). Hopefully we can opt out of that. I keep my Listnook account username private and don't exactly want it to be shared with my "friends."
9
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +152
[deleted]
152
spez Apr 3, 2017 +374
Not without a valid legal request, but a warrant isn't the only form of request we receive. We have to respond to valid subpoenas and court orders as well, for example.
374
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +506
[deleted]
506
fuck-the-dolan Apr 3, 2017 +27
Is there any reason to be overly-paranoid to this degree for a casual user? I honestly do not understand why somebody would go through this much trouble. Maybe things are different if you mod certain sublistnooks (as you mentioned), or live in certain parts of the world, but this seems extreme. Not trying to disparage you, because I found all of this intensely interesting. I am just genuinely curious at what this is aimed to accomplish. Is this for users who are potentially using listnook while living in oppressive regimes where access to information is heavily censored? Is it to protect the user from legal consequences if they participate in acts that are considered illegal? Is it just a broad counter-measure to increased data-collection capabilities of western liberal democracies, in case shit eventually hits the fan? Is this aimed more toward someone in a state like China or Russia that has a very real existential threat to their safety if they participate in discourse against the government, or does this apply equally to democracies like the US, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, or the UK? It just seems like being overly-cautious for someone who wants to casually discuss anime, or video games, or something. Even something that is not quite so innocuous, like casually talking politics. I remember reading about the canary way back when it happened, but I forgot about it until just now. It makes me wonder if it is blowing things out of proportion, or if things are really that bad with listnook and you just don't hear about it regularly because of some conspiracy, or even worse, just plain apathy. Very thought-provoking in either case, thanks for the write-up.
27
John_Wang Apr 3, 2017 +6466
> Request 4: A company (Company A) issued a subpoena to Listnook seeking private account information about a user who made a post on Listnook that was critical of a company related to Company A (Company B). The post was based in fact and expressed the user’s opinion about Company B. Listnook objected to the subpoena, including on First Amendment grounds, and Company A filed a motion to compel Listnook to produce the user’s information. Listnook fought the motion and the Court ruled that Listnook was not required to produce the user’s information. How f****** crazy is it that a company actually tried to go to court over someone being critical of that company.
6466
-Niernen Apr 3, 2017 +527
Pretty sure there was a post in /r/legaladvice about that. A user had posted their opinion on a mass layoff or something of the sort and the company came after them. Not sure if it's the same thing, couldn't find the post. Edit : [found it](https://np.listnook.com/r/legaladvice/comments/62f2ud/us_tn_a_very_large_corporation_has_subpoenaed/)
527
shadowofashadow Apr 3, 2017 +225
> How f****** crazy is it that a company actually tried to go to court over someone being critical of that company. Haha, come join us in /r/legaladvice and you can read stories like this every day.
225
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +29
Yep, there is some crazy shit companies and even individuals will pull or try to pull legally speaking.
29
Realtrain Apr 3, 2017 +409
The crazy part is that enough executives in the company thought it was worth their time and money to try to bring that to court. What a horrible business decision.
409
shadowofashadow Apr 3, 2017 +186
Yeah, what was their plan anyways? To sue the person? Then what? Literally nothing good could have come of their plan unless it was their CEO's alt account or something haha.
186
AccountNo43 Apr 3, 2017 +188
the point was probably to punish the person by entangling him or her in a legal battle he or she couldn't afford to discourage other workers from speaking out.
188
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +62
Or to hope that listnook wouldn't bother fighting it in court and would just hand over the guy's data
62
bananapeel Apr 3, 2017 +7
It may have been an employee. They could terminate the employee without cause in most "right to work" states. If there is a clause in the employee handbook about social media or off-duty appearances, they might be able to use that.
7
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +14
"Coca-Cola sues user for saying that Pepsi tastes better." /s I can just see the media backlash something like that would bring.
14
theneedfull Apr 3, 2017 +31
Wouldn't these court cases be public record? Maybe someone that knows how to find that info could name and shame them.
31
The_MAZZTer Apr 3, 2017 +7
The identity of the companies involved here should be public record. Wait, wouldn't the court records be public after the trial is concluded? IANAL but I think that's how it works except for extraordinary conditions? So we could, in theory, figure it out? Or maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about?
7
salec1 Apr 3, 2017 +2607
We call this the "Yelp strategy"
2607
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +651
[deleted]
651
Failroko Apr 3, 2017 +370
My favorite was an A/C unit I looked into buying(live in Germany). All the 5 star reviews came in January.... not suspicious.
370
LaffinIdUp Apr 3, 2017 +231
Unless the reviews were from Australia?
231
Failroko Apr 3, 2017 +32
Didn't know so many Germans in Australia still bought c**** A/C units from Europe lol.
32
chupa72 Apr 3, 2017 +27
Obviously free shipping to Australia, I mean how much could a A/C unit cost to ship from Europe to Australia anyways, mate? /s
27
sinisterspud Apr 4, 2017 +15
There's a new shipping hole that cuts through the center of the earth and connects the two hemispheres. All you gotta do is drop the AC unit and have a guy on the other end be ready to catch it. Effectively making shipping free, surprised you hadn't heard of it to be honest.
15
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +58
Maybe it was Amy's Baking Company lol
58
wachet Apr 3, 2017 +80
Back in the throes of the Amy's Baking Company scandal, they posted some manic update on their Facebook page disclosing some kind of big plans. I commented something like "Good luck with that!" and I didn't notice until like a year later that Amy herself had [replied to me by private message, and it landed in my "Message Requests" folder.](http://imgur.com/a/nlfuA) Lol.
80
torontodon Apr 3, 2017 +8
It looks more like a company (a) wanted the info of someone who criticised another company (b) or maybe I'm reading it wrong? Maybe they were concerned it was a member of their staff doing it?
8
wickedplayer494 Apr 3, 2017 +207
>Listnook objected to the remaining 4 requests for the following reasons: >... >**Request 2:** >* A litigant issued a subpoena to Listnook seeking his or her own account information. * Listnook advised that the user could request that Listnook provide them with their own information directly. The litigant subsequently withdrew the subpoena. That one gave me a bit of a chuckle. But maybe that poor soul was just pissed that there's still no data liberation tools of any sort [that were talked about many years ago](https://www.listnook.com/r/ideasfortheadmins/comments/10tai6/ever_wondered_the_data_liberation_policy_of_listnook/c6gicdf/). I guess subpoena counts as an "offline" system though. LOL
207
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +48
[deleted]
48
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +159
[deleted]
159
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +57
[deleted]
57
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +63
> Turkey – We received 6 requests for the removal of one post and 6 sublistnooks which contained material that fell under the scope of “obscenity” in the Turkish Criminal Code which, in turn, constitutes grounds for a website to be blocked under the Turkish Internet Law. The post and sublistnooks were blocked from Turkish IPs. Can we get a list of the subs blocked in Turkey? **Edit:** I was PMd saying that /r/ gayporn is blocked but going through other major subs, I can't find any other ones. Can we please get a reply on this one, /u/spez? **Edit 2:** I went through listnooklist.com's nsfw list and checked like 200 more subs. found 2 more: /r/ gaypornhunters and /r/ twinks. I see a pattern. **Edit 3:** [TurkeyBlocks.org article](https://turkeyblocks.org/2017/04/04/lgbti-sections-disappear-as-listnook-complies-with-turkey-censorship-orders/).
63
greyfurt Apr 3, 2017 +41
Yes please. I wonder what else is blocked? /u/spez? I'm straight but I will m********* to /r/gayporn just to spite Erdoğan.
41
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +93
>A company (Company A) issued a subpoena to Listnook seeking private account information about a user who made a post on Listnook that was critical of a company related to Company A (Company B). >The post was based in fact and expressed the user’s opinion about Company B. >Listnook objected to the subpoena, including on First Amendment grounds, and Company A filed a motion to compel Listnook to produce the user’s information. >Listnook fought the motion and the Court ruled that Listnook was not required to produce the user’s information. Wow, that kinda shit's really insane to me. Good Guy Listnook.
93
buckyball60 Apr 3, 2017 +71
>Request 2: > A litigant issued a subpoena to Listnook seeking his or her own account information. Listnook advised that the user could request that Listnook provide them with their own information directly. The litigant subsequently withdrew the subpoena. "Hey bud, you know you could just ask nicely..."
71
salec1 Apr 3, 2017 +132
Thank you so much for taking part in the Facebook amicus brief earlier this year. I knew one of 381 targeted users and the whole things reeked of BS. Thanks for standing your ground.
132
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +966
[deleted]
966
anonymous_potato Apr 3, 2017 +22
From reading your linked article, it seems like Listnook can say that they received requests, they just can't specify the number? Am I interpreting that correctly? >The suit came following an announcement from the Obama administration that it would allow Internet companies to disclose more about the numbers of national security letters they receive. But they can still only provide a range such as between zero and 999 requests, or between 1,000 and 1,999, which Twitter, joined by listnook and others, has argued is too broad.
22
squiiuiigs Apr 3, 2017 +10
Recipients of [National Security Letter's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter) may not say if they have received one. However, people and corporations may say they have never received a National Security Letter. If Listnook has received a National Security Letter, it is against the law to tell anyone that. Example: Listnook in 2014 could say in their disclosure report "Listnook has never received a National Security Letter". In 2015, that statement disappeared, hence implying, without actually saying, Listnook had received a National Security Letter. >"NSLs typically contain a nondisclosure requirement forbidding the recipient of an NSL from disclosing that the FBI had requested the information.[1] The nondisclosure provision must be authorized by the Director of the FBI, and only after he or she certifies "that otherwise there may result a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person."[3] Even then, the recipient of the NSL may still challenge the nondisclosure provision in federal court.[4]" If Listnook wanted to challenge that National Security Letter, it would also be done in secret. Listnook could not say that have filed a lawsuit against the US Government challenging a National Security Letter. The filing and all the paperwork would be done in secret. Anyone who disclosed any information would be arrested including secretaries, paralegals, court clerks, Listnook execs... etc.
10
TheCowboyIsAnIndian Apr 3, 2017 +61
I mean how do you get the canary back? Once it's gone it's gone. If there was a new canary here, there would be no way of knowing it is legit. The canary days are over, maaaan.
61
_KATANA Apr 3, 2017 +38
This canary is no more! It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet it's maker. This is a late canary!
38
Aurora_Fatalis Apr 3, 2017 +173
If the statement "We have never received a blablabla" disappeared one year and then *reappeared* the next year without comment, that would be even more shady.
173
RandomPrecision1 Apr 3, 2017 +16
I guess I would kind of assume that the terms of a gag order that invalidated a warrant canary would come with some kind of a "PS: pls don't put the canary back in" attached. I don't know how things like that are legally worded, but I would assume there's some language that not only prohibits positively saying "I got this request", but also prohibits negatively saying "well I didn't get any requests before September 22 2013, and I didn't get any requests after September 24 2013"
16
This_is_a_rubbery Apr 3, 2017 +46
does the canary restart every year? or once they get one request they remove it forever?
46
sushibowl Apr 3, 2017 +102
It's tricky because canaries are legally completely untested. Usually the warrant canary consists of the statement "we have never received a secret court order," and once it's gone it's gone forever. There might be companies that use phrasing like "we haven't received any secret court orders in 2016" but I haven't heard of any.
102
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +58
If they can say "... in 2016", can they say "in April of 2017"? This gets onto an interesting slippery slope. I think the FBI would be very upset with "since 28 March 2016 at 16:37 UTC", so I think they'd try to draw the line all the way back before mentioning a year.
58
Bardfinn Apr 3, 2017 +346
Canary is still missing. I went straight to check.
346
unexpectedreboots Apr 3, 2017 +211
Why would it be added back? The removal indicates they did in fact receive a request.
211
Bardfinn Apr 3, 2017 +284
One could be added that says "During 2016, we did not receive a request from law enforcement for user information which we were judicially gagged from disclosing". That doesn't touch 2015's disappearance / lack of a warrant canary. The fact that it is *still* missing is reason to suspect that they are aware that they are still being judicially required to hand over user details and then not divulge that fact. If they weren't, they could re-establish a warrant canary.
284
unexpectedreboots Apr 3, 2017 +97
Can they do that? The way the canary read in the 2014 report states: > As of January 29, 2015, listnook has never received a National Security Letter I was under the impression that Canary's couldn't be re-established year over year, it was all or nothing. Are there any examples of canaries being added, removed, then re-established?
97
Bardfinn Apr 3, 2017 +135
There's no "standard" form of a warrant canary. It is down to how the language is written — it could be "In 2016, Listnook did not receive nor was under the onus of a National Security Letter.". The genius of such language is that it simply and succinctly states a limited fact, from which nothing else may reasonably be derived, and the lack of such a statement in the future is not actionable.
135
Aurora_Fatalis Apr 3, 2017 +24
> "In 2016, Listnook did not receive xor was under the onus of a National Security Letter." Formulated like this, it could even be technically true!
24
ergzay Apr 3, 2017 +84
Canarys don't come back. That's the point. It's a one-off event.
84
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +38
>The post and sublistnooks were blocked from Turkish IPs. Does anyone have links to posts that are blocked by country? That seems like it would be interesting to see.
38
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +16
[deleted]
16
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +37
[deleted]
37
gsuberland Apr 3, 2017 +25
If you put it on the internet then there is no guarantee that it can be removed. Even if Listnook did agree to delete all of your content, it was entirely public up until that point, and can be copied to archives, backups, comment undeleter sites, etc. outside of Listnook's control. I maintain a comment deletion tool, but fully caveat that it is not a silver bullet and users should be aware that anything they publish can and (in all likelihood) will be copied and distributed elsewhere.
25
wuop Apr 3, 2017 +39
Why, when I look at listnook on my phone, does it remind me every few days that I could be viewing a mobile version? Why can't listnook take a hint the fiftieth time I decline?
39
Cyrris Apr 3, 2017 +7
Re: the Section 230 case for which Listnook (and others) filed the amicus brief, is there any more recent news about it? I can't find anything since January, but then it wouldn't surprise me if such things just move that slowly. Section 230 is the reason the web as we know it exists, and as a non-American I am constantly disappointed that my own country is so happy to shoot itself in the foot by not having a similar law. (Australia, but really, it could be any other country). So, I'm pretty keen to keep track of how that case progresses.
7
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +98
How many tries did it take you to post this, /u/spez? Listnook is borking all over the place today. Also no national security canary year as well [as opposed to 2014](https://www.listnookstatic.com/transparency/2014.pdf). It also disappeared last year. [For your reading pleasure on what all this means](https://www.listnook.com/r/worldnews/comments/4ct1kz/listnook_deletes_surveillance_warrant_canary_in/)
98
LBJSmellsNice Apr 3, 2017 +11
I may be wrong, but I think that the warrant canary is a one time thing. The legal grounds for it are a bit shaky already, since it's not saying "we've had warrant requests" but more "we aren't going to deny it." Since whether or not they got these types of warrants isn't something they can legally reveal, then I don't believe they legally can say or even imply what year they were in since that gets too specific. But I think it's already not a legally solid position to begin with.
11
PonyToast Apr 3, 2017 +26
/u/spez, I am very happy and thankful that listnook releases these reports and fights for internet rights and transparency. I have a small concern and I'm sure you will be able to provide a satisfactory answer. Earlier this year there was an incident involving the editing of listnook post data by superusers. There was a lot of fallout, but some users were concerned this kind of thing may happen again. What steps has listnook taken, or policies put in force, that would deter such action in the future? Understand, again, I do not mean to be critical, I am only looking for an answer in the name of transparency and hope you do not take offense to my inquiry.
26
[deleted] Apr 3, 2017 +5
I have a few points: * Do you think it would be worth having the community input into the amicus briefs, perhaps at a draft stage, so that we can collectively support a party and position together, or suggest other ways of achieving a result (perhaps through, say, another party) * In which cases do you choose to with hold partial (or full) information from the US government? * Do you comply with foreign requests for information? And if so, why? * Is it a legal obligation for listnook to keep IP logs? One part of your report alarms me, namely this part: >Russia - We received one request (and 14 duplicate requests) to remove content from the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor), in conjunction with the Federal Drug Control Service, with respect to a post which allegedly "contains appeals to mass riots, extremist activities or participation in mass (public) actions held with infringement of the established order." **The content was blocked from Russian IPs.** > Turkey – We received 6 requests for the removal of one post and 6 sublistnooks which contained material that fell under the scope of “obscenity” in the Turkish Criminal Code which, in turn, constitutes grounds for a website to be blocked under the Turkish Internet Law. **The post and sublistnooks were blocked from Turkish IPs.** Is listnook participating in State censorship?
5
← Back to Board