3 ms·

"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

by 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?

by IBM 13y ago

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?