4 ms·

Could a lawyer or someone with familiarity with warrants like these explain how a "warrant canary" is legal? I understand the concept, but discloses something

Could a lawyer or someone with familiarity with warrants like these explain how a "warrant canary" is legal? I understand the concept, but discloses something you can't disclose. They can compel you to lie/not comment if asked, "Hey, Apple, did you get any of those National Security Letters". Is there a clear cut loophole or is this something yet to be challenged?

panarky 12y ago
The EFF has a good FAQ on the legal considerations for warrant canaries. While there's plenty of precedent for gag orders, there's not much case law for compelled false speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq
kllrnohj 12y ago
> I understand the concept, but discloses something you can't disclose. Until they have been served a warrant, they are not under a non-disclosure warrant. That's how the canary is legal. > hey can compel you to lie/not comment if asked No, no they cannot. They can prevent you from commenting, they can NOT compel you to lie. Lying and not commenting are very, VERY different.
- zephjc 12y ago
  Ah, the old "lie of omission" gambit.
- gohrt 12y ago
  > Lying and not commenting are very, VERY different. The Federal Government disgrees with you. Just one example: https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=least%20untruthful%20manner%20possible https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=least%20untruthful%20manner%...
  - kllrnohj 12y ago
    Your example doesn't disagree with me. It has nothing to do with being compelled to lie by a court order. It has nothing to do with the Judicial system at all. It has nothing to do with lying vs. not commenting.
TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
In general, it is far easier to (legally) force a company to not announce something than to force them to announce a lie. So no, it is not perfect. But it is better than nothing.
bambax 12y ago
IANAL (and not an American citizen to begin with!) but most laws are formal, that's how they're compatible with "freedom". For a law to forbid you to do something, it has to describe what actions are exactly forbidden, in a fairly precise language. A legal system can't let law enforcement officials decide after the fact what's permitted and what isn't (that's the theory anyway; your actual experience may vary widely). So if a law forbids you to tell something, but doesn't explicitly forbid you to not tell another thing, the non-telling of which could potentially reveal the thing that's supposed to stay secret, then you can claim that you technically obeyed the letter of the law, if not its spirit.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - bambax 12y ago
    Well, the US has a dual system; in the US everything eventually ends up being evaluated against a written Constitution (something the UK never had). And if you look at SCOTUS, many Justices are essentialists (the most famous of which is Antonin Scalia); legal essentialism means sticking to the letter of the law. So I think what I described is a reasonable explanation of the legal canary, at least from a philosophical point of view.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

panarky 12y ago

The EFF has a good FAQ on the legal considerations for warrant canaries. While there's plenty of precedent for gag orders, there's not much case law for compelled false speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq

kllrnohj 12y ago

> I understand the concept, but discloses something you can't disclose. Until they have been served a warrant, they are not under a non-disclosure warrant. That's how the canary is legal. > hey can compel you to lie/not comment if asked No, no they cannot. They can prevent you from commenting, they can NOT compel you to lie. Lying and not commenting are very, VERY different.

zephjc 12y ago
Ah, the old "lie of omission" gambit.
gohrt 12y ago
> Lying and not commenting are very, VERY different. The Federal Government disgrees with you. Just one example: https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=least%20untruthful%20manner%20possible https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=least%20untruthful%20manner%...
- kllrnohj 12y ago
  Your example doesn't disagree with me. It has nothing to do with being compelled to lie by a court order. It has nothing to do with the Judicial system at all. It has nothing to do with lying vs. not commenting.

TheLoneWolfling 12y ago

In general, it is far easier to (legally) force a company to not announce something than to force them to announce a lie. So no, it is not perfect. But it is better than nothing.

bambax 12y ago

IANAL (and not an American citizen to begin with!) but most laws are formal, that's how they're compatible with "freedom". For a law to forbid you to do something, it has to describe what actions are exactly forbidden, in a fairly precise language. A legal system can't let law enforcement officials decide after the fact what's permitted and what isn't (that's the theory anyway; your actual experience may vary widely). So if a law forbids you to tell something, but doesn't explicitly forbid you to not tell another thing, the non-telling of which could potentially reveal the thing that's supposed to stay secret, then you can claim that you technically obeyed the letter of the law, if not its spirit.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- bambax 12y ago
  Well, the US has a dual system; in the US everything eventually ends up being evaluated against a written Constitution (something the UK never had). And if you look at SCOTUS, many Justices are essentialists (the most famous of which is Antonin Scalia); legal essentialism means sticking to the letter of the law. So I think what I described is a reasonable explanation of the legal canary, at least from a philosophical point of view.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]