ISPs providing "warrant canaries"

[Steve Schear]

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