2 ms·

> the administration will continue trying to persuade companies that have moved to encrypt their customers’ data to create a way for the government to still pee

by a3n 11y ago

> the administration will continue trying to persuade companies that have moved to encrypt their customers’ data to create a way for the government to still peer into people’s data If you are one of these companies that are informally cooperating with the government on this, please state so publicly, in the signup process and by message to current users, so that we can avoid using your services now, or at least when it's discovered later if you weren't honest about it up front.

declan 11y ago
Well put. We tried to take a very privacy-protective stand when building Recent News (https://recent.io https://recent.io) because of the amount of personalization we do. This warrant canary is part of our privacy policy: As of [date], we have not received any legal process or demand from any federal, state, or local government that includes a gag order. We have received no National Security Letters, civil subpoenas, search warrants, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders, grand jury subpoenas, or any other form of compulsory process accompanied by a gag order. As of [date], we have received no legal orders requiring us to monitor users' future activities or to modify our service. If we do receive any form of compulsory process from any government entity, we will do our best to ensure that our users' legal rights and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are protected. That includes challenging overly broad orders in court. It is still valid, I'm happy to say, for [date] values of today.
- polymatter 11y ago
  IANAL, but the judge may order you to keep the warrant canary or find you in contempt. Law is based on intent and if your intent in removing that clause is in broadcasting you are under gag order, when the gag order restricts you from doing exactly that, you may find that will be taken as a breach. This should not be taken as legal advice, YMMV, yadda yadda.

by a3n 11y ago

declan 11y ago

Well put. We tried to take a very privacy-protective stand when building Recent News (https://recent.io https://recent.io) because of the amount of personalization we do. This warrant canary is part of our privacy policy: As of [date], we have not received any legal process or demand from any federal, state, or local government that includes a gag order. We have received no National Security Letters, civil subpoenas, search warrants, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders, grand jury subpoenas, or any other form of compulsory process accompanied by a gag order. As of [date], we have received no legal orders requiring us to monitor users' future activities or to modify our service. If we do receive any form of compulsory process from any government entity, we will do our best to ensure that our users' legal rights and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are protected. That includes challenging overly broad orders in court. It is still valid, I'm happy to say, for [date] values of today.

polymatter 11y ago
IANAL, but the judge may order you to keep the warrant canary or find you in contempt. Law is based on intent and if your intent in removing that clause is in broadcasting you are under gag order, when the gag order restricts you from doing exactly that, you may find that will be taken as a breach. This should not be taken as legal advice, YMMV, yadda yadda.