At 02:25 PM 5/20/2006, Justin wrote:
On 2006-05-20T13:30:53-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
That might have been me. I did post about apparently legal ways to circumvent such secret warrants but I did not use a BB method but rather provide a service where clients can request if a warrant has been served on the library or ISP for their account or any account. The service provider is free to reply if no warrant has been received but is muzzled if one has. This failure to reply, which is not a positive action, is what reveals the warrant. rsync's approach appears consistent with mine.
I think this is entirely too clever, and while I don't agree with sneak-and-peak warrants in general, as long as they exist, these countermeasures clearly violate the non-disclosure terms.
I don't see how not saying anything to an inquiry violates the terms of the warrant. Before the inquiry there is no warrant. So how can you violate an order which had not been given and you could not know ever would be given?
A "warrant canary" does in fact disclose sneak-and-peak warrant service. Anyone arguing otherwise must rely on some limited, naive definition of "disclose." Not even Webster's, the clearinghouse of shallow and narrow definitions, defines "disclose" as "communicate something to something through positive action."
Does anyone have a link to a sample sneak-and-peak warrant no-disclosure clause?
It does not matter what the warrant says unless it says you must give false information regarding an inquiry. I have not ever heard of a court ordering a person to lie. Have you? Steve