3 ms·
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 personalizat
by 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 agoIANAL, 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.