Thank you all for your messages. I consider my suggestion as declined. No wonder... :-)
Regards, Adrian. On 10/11/13 8:21 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Thinker Rix <thinke...@rocketmail.com > <mailto: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 > _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
