4 ms·
It would be interesting to see a company implement this on the individual account level, rather than for the service as a whole. As it stands, while certainly i
by roxgib 4y ago
It would be interesting to see a company implement this on the individual account level, rather than for the service as a whole. As it stands, while certainly interesting from a legal standpoint, I'm not sure this achieves much other than confirming that secret warrants are in use, and perhaps giving some vague indication of their frequency.
- fathyb 4y agoI believe they can't because of the legality, it would remove the secrecy of the warrant. The canary allows a company to imply they got searched without breaching the secrecy. In this case, information got removed, which is not illegal because the information removed is not required by law.
- roxgib 4y agoSo if they're allowed to reveal they got searched, why the need for the canary? And if it works on a company level, why does it not work on a user level?
- AH4oFVbPT4f8 4y agoIt's not so much that the information got removed but rather they decided to not update the message. Failure of a new update is the signal that something happened.