3 ms·
The law is a lot smarter than this. Any act that tends to disclose the existence of such an order, which could include the publishing of a revised transparency
by downandout 13y ago
The law is a lot smarter than this. Any act that tends to disclose the existence of such an order, which could include the publishing of a revised transparency report in reaction to receipt of the warrant, could be construed by a judge as a violation of its confidentiality provisions. The law is very broad on this, and subject to interpretation by the judge.
In short, warrant canaries are no different than taking out a billboard announcing receipt of the warrant. Both are overt acts intended to disclose the warrant, and both are illegal.
- kazagistar 13y agoHas this specifically been tested in court? It seems like some form of 1st amendment or 5th amendment case could be made against this...
- hobs 13y agoRight, and since a judge likely hasnt ruled on this yet (at least in a non-secret court) the government would have to order that when they received the letter, or they could do it and then get slapped later. Just because a thing is potentially illegal doesnt mean you cant do it and fight it later, which is something a multinational company with xx billion dollars could sure and try.
- rhizome 13y agoEven a schlub who decided they wanted to test the system would likely receive an embarrassment of legal talent volunteering to represent them pro-bono.
- Segmentation 13y agoNothing will ever come of it. Warrant canaries are a cheap feel-good tactic for public relations. Even if served 215, Apple will continue to keep the warrant canary up, because it makes its customers feel safer, and because they're wise enough to know it would never fly with a judge. The public will continue to think Apple was never served 215, and there's absolutely no way we could ever disprove it.
- srj 13y agoI wonder what punishing action the judge would take. Apple is one of the largest US companies and a national icon. I don't think the company could be fined privately because its books are public. Fining them publicly would only raise additional attention.
- rsynnott 13y ago> The law is very broad on this, and subject to interpretation by the judge. I'm sure the US government would just _love_ to go to court with Apple over this. That wouldn't be hideous publicity for a currently little-known provision of the law at all...