Difference between revisions of "Warrant canary"
m (Text replacement - "|WP=https://" to "|wikipedia=https://") |
(tidy) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{concept | {{concept | ||
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary | |wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary | ||
| + | |description=An attempt to skirt the ban on revealing secret government search orders. | ||
| + | |constitutes= | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | A '''warrant canary''' is a method by which a communications service provider aims to inform its users that it has not been served with a secret government subpoena. | ||
| − | + | Secret subpoenas, including those covered under 18 U.S.C. §2709(c) of the [[USA Patriot Act]], provide criminal penalties for disclosing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's users.<ref>http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_Strossen.pdf</ref><ref>Eunice Moscoso (August 17, 2003), "Subpoenas Fly In Hunt For Hidden Terrorists", Palm Beach Post, p. 1A</ref> | |
| − | == | + | A warrant canary may be posted by the provider to inform users of dates that they have not been served a secret subpoena. If the canary has not been updated in the time period specified by the host, users are to assume that the host has been served with such a subpoena. |
| − | Some | + | |
| + | ==Australia== | ||
| + | Some sorts of warrant canary have been illegal in Australia since 2015.<ref>https://boingboing.net/2015/03/26/australia-outlaws-warrant-cana.html</ref> | ||
==''Had'' a warrant canary== | ==''Had'' a warrant canary== | ||
| − | [[Apple]] ''had'' a warrant canary, but no longer have. One might assume from this that they have been pressured by clandestine forces. | + | [[Apple]] ''had'' a warrant canary<ref>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/no-apple-probably-didnt-get-new-secret-govt-orders-to-hand-over-data/</ref>, but no longer have. One might assume from this that they have been pressured by clandestine forces. |
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 09:59, 2 March 2023
 Warrant canary    | |
|---|---|
| An attempt to skirt the ban on revealing secret government search orders. |
A warrant canary is a method by which a communications service provider aims to inform its users that it has not been served with a secret government subpoena.
Secret subpoenas, including those covered under 18 U.S.C. §2709(c) of the USA Patriot Act, provide criminal penalties for disclosing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's users.[1][2]
A warrant canary may be posted by the provider to inform users of dates that they have not been served a secret subpoena. If the canary has not been updated in the time period specified by the host, users are to assume that the host has been served with such a subpoena.
Australia
Some sorts of warrant canary have been illegal in Australia since 2015.[3]
Had a warrant canary
Apple had a warrant canary[4], but no longer have. One might assume from this that they have been pressured by clandestine forces.
References
- ↑ http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_Strossen.pdf
- ↑ Eunice Moscoso (August 17, 2003), "Subpoenas Fly In Hunt For Hidden Terrorists", Palm Beach Post, p. 1A
- ↑ https://boingboing.net/2015/03/26/australia-outlaws-warrant-cana.html
- ↑ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/no-apple-probably-didnt-get-new-secret-govt-orders-to-hand-over-data/
