On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Thinker Rix <thinke...@rocketmail.com>wrote:
> Probably would not work (or would get whoever did that thrown in jail). > This is similar to a Warrant Canary, but the USDoJ has indicated that > Warrant Canaries would probably be grounds for prosecution of violation of > the non-disclosure order. > > inspired by the keyword you dropped, I researched a little bit and found: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary > It seems that you are correct: What Adrian suggests, is called a Warrant > canary. > In the wikipedia article it says that: "The intention is to allow the > provider to inform customers of the existence of a subpoena passively, > without violating any laws. The legality of this method has not been tested > in any court." Is that wrong or in conflict with what you wrote? > I do not know of any prosecution for using a Warrant Canary, but that does not change whether the government would intend to prosecute it (and I have discussed it with lawyers in the DoJ and other areas). It just means that the situation has not come up: either because no place that uses a Warrant Canary has received a "secret order" or because no place that has received one has been willing to really use it as designed. This is what it boils down to: Do you want to go in front of a federal judge and say "I did not say we received a subpoena, I just stopped saying we did not receive one."? I know I would not want to. If anyone wants to talk more about Warrant Canaries, email me off the list. - Y
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
