4 ms·

Apple is on the record as having never received an NSL. NSLs may prohibit you from disclosing information, but they cannot force you to lie (especially by one y

by IBM 13y ago

Apple is on the record as having never received an NSL. NSLs may prohibit you from disclosing information, but they cannot force you to lie (especially by one you've never received).

moron4hire 13y ago
They can force you to lie. If not lying would conceivably tip off a subject of an investigation that they are under surveillance, than not lying would be in violation of the NSL. That is the entire point of the gag order.
- IBM 13y ago
  "Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us." So are you suggesting they've received a NSL letter about nothing in particular forcing them to lie in this instance?
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    I'm not suggesting that they have or have not received a NSL. I am saying, if they are in compliance with the gag order portion of the NSL, then they must always deny that they ever received a NSL for any reason. The government views not denying receipt of a NSL as confirming receipt. If they hadn't received a NSL, of course they would say they hadn't received one. If they had received a NSL, or course they would say they hadn't received one. The only reply to the question of "have you received a NSL" that is ever legal, is to deny receipt. So whatever their true status is, it cannot be judged from their own statements, as long as we assume that nobody at Apple gives two shits enough to stick their neck out and risk incarceration for violating a NSL.
    - sigzero 13y ago
      Or we could believe their statement about fighting the order. So much speculation and no facts.
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    If they get one in the future what happens? Are they allowed to not make this claim next time, which strongly implies that they got one? Open question, is there any US precedent as to what they're allowed to do there?
    - IBM 13y ago
      If they get one in the future then they drop the statement from their report. moron4hire seems to believe that they would force them to keep the statement (and thus lie), but I'm going to need a source on that.
      - mcintyre1994 13y ago
        That seems like the obvious answer, and I'm inclined to believe it, but it seems like a very strong implication that they did get one if they do that. If they're not allowed to tell, are they allowed to imply this strongly?
magicalist 13y ago
This is not correct. You're thinking of Apple's "warrant canary", which covered only Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, "Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act", aka mass FISA requests. Apple almost certainly has received many NSLs, which is why they can only disclose "1000-2000 account information requests" for the first half of 2013 in their transparency report. That number combines law enforcement and national security order requests in order to keep vague the exact number of the latter. If you take a look at that transparency report[1], you can see they come as close as you can to confirming that they have received NSLs when (so far) you can of course not confirm that you've ever received NSLs. [1] https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests3.pdf https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests3....
- IBM 13y ago
  I was under the impression that section 215 was the NSL since it mentions the bit about gag orders on Wikipedia: >The section carries a gag order stating that "No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section"
  - magicalist 13y ago
    No, the modern NSL was defined in section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, though it modifies statutes going back many decades. It was section 505, though, that let the FBI go hog-wild with them.

by IBM 13y ago

Apple is on the record as having never received an NSL. NSLs may prohibit you from disclosing information, but they cannot force you to lie (especially by one you've never received).

moron4hire 13y ago

They can force you to lie. If not lying would conceivably tip off a subject of an investigation that they are under surveillance, than not lying would be in violation of the NSL. That is the entire point of the gag order.

IBM 13y ago
"Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us." So are you suggesting they've received a NSL letter about nothing in particular forcing them to lie in this instance?
- moron4hire 13y ago
  I'm not suggesting that they have or have not received a NSL. I am saying, if they are in compliance with the gag order portion of the NSL, then they must always deny that they ever received a NSL for any reason. The government views not denying receipt of a NSL as confirming receipt. If they hadn't received a NSL, of course they would say they hadn't received one. If they had received a NSL, or course they would say they hadn't received one. The only reply to the question of "have you received a NSL" that is ever legal, is to deny receipt. So whatever their true status is, it cannot be judged from their own statements, as long as we assume that nobody at Apple gives two shits enough to stick their neck out and risk incarceration for violating a NSL.
  - sigzero 13y ago
    Or we could believe their statement about fighting the order. So much speculation and no facts.
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  If they get one in the future what happens? Are they allowed to not make this claim next time, which strongly implies that they got one? Open question, is there any US precedent as to what they're allowed to do there?
  - IBM 13y ago
    If they get one in the future then they drop the statement from their report. moron4hire seems to believe that they would force them to keep the statement (and thus lie), but I'm going to need a source on that.
    - mcintyre1994 13y ago
      That seems like the obvious answer, and I'm inclined to believe it, but it seems like a very strong implication that they did get one if they do that. If they're not allowed to tell, are they allowed to imply this strongly?

magicalist 13y ago

This is not correct. You're thinking of Apple's "warrant canary", which covered only Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, "Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act", aka mass FISA requests. Apple almost certainly has received many NSLs, which is why they can only disclose "1000-2000 account information requests" for the first half of 2013 in their transparency report. That number combines law enforcement and national security order requests in order to keep vague the exact number of the latter. If you take a look at that transparency report[1], you can see they come as close as you can to confirming that they have received NSLs when (so far) you can of course not confirm that you've ever received NSLs. [1] https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests3.pdf https://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovinforequests3....

IBM 13y ago
I was under the impression that section 215 was the NSL since it mentions the bit about gag orders on Wikipedia: >The section carries a gag order stating that "No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section"
- magicalist 13y ago
  No, the modern NSL was defined in section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, though it modifies statutes going back many decades. It was section 505, though, that let the FBI go hog-wild with them.