> In other words, anyone with two brain cells can see that, if there has in fact been a 215 order by the time the next report rolls around, then deliberately re

> In other words, anyone with two brain cells can see that, if there has in fact been a 215 order by the time the next report rolls around, then deliberately removing the warrant canary language is tantamount to revealing the order's existence, which is illegal. As a matter of logic, that is not necessarily correct. The beauty of the warrant canary is that it takes advantage of the ambiguity that is inherent in unexplained omissions: 1. A person may choose not to continue publishing their canary because they have received a warrant. This scenario might impermissibly reveal the warrant's existence. 2. A person may choose not to continue publishing their canary at any time, for any reason, without explanation, even if they have previously said (a) they wouldn't discontinue the canary unless they received a warrant, and (b) they have not in fact received a warrant. This scenario doesn't reveal anything. In most cases, it's impossible for a third party to distinguish between those scenarios, with the result that the person's decision to omit any further publication of the canary is equivocal, and does not necessarily convey anything about whether or not a warrant has been served. There could be other circumstances that do allow a third party to distinguish between the above scenarios, and thereby convey information about the existence of a warrant - but I don't think what Apple has done goes that far. The position of rsync.net[1] is less clear. Note: I have used 'warrant' here because I am referring to the general concept of a 'warrant canary', but the language of s 501 of FISA[2] (introduced by s 215 of the PATRIOT Act) is a bit different. [1] http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861