Privacy

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
bulk data, patriot act, warrant canary

Companies:
apple



Did Apple Keep Or Remove Its Warrant Canary Concerning PATRIOT Act Requests?

from the unclear dept

Last fall, we wrote about how Apple has placed a warrant canary in its first ever Transparency Report, noting:
Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us.
In case you haven't been keeping track, the Section 215 orders are so called "business records" requests. It's the basis for the orders to Verizon demanding metadata on all calls. It's not the whole PRISM program, which details more specific requests for content and metadata. A "warrant canary" is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Since these requests come with gag orders, you can get out in front of them by saying ahead of time that you haven't received one. Then, if it disappears, people have reason to believe that you did get such a request and just can't talk about it anymore.

Jeff John Roberts, over at GigaOm, has noticed that updates to Apple's Transparency Reports didn't appear to have that same warrant canary, leading to speculation that perhaps Apple had received just such a Section 215 order. However, it's not clear if that's true. Christopher Soghoian has pointed out that the transparency reports do include some similar language:
To date, Apple has not received any orders for bulk data.
And, contrary to Roberts' reporting, Section 215 is not the basis for PRISM, which we already knew Apple is a part of, but rather for bulk data collection of "business records." So if it hasn't received "any orders for bulk data," then it still seems likely that it hasn't received a 215 order, but it's not entirely clear. As Soghoian notes: "There is a lesson to be learned here: once you post a warrant canary, it needs to stay in the same place and use the same language."

Of course, it's possible that Apple is actually signalling something different here. Perhaps it truly has not received a 215 order, but it did get pressured from the DOJ not to use the original warrant canary language. That would explain the change in wording, though would still raise some serious questions about the legality of such a demand from the DOJ.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2014 @ 2:44pm

    Or they provided data without having been ordered to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 18 Sep 2014 @ 2:47pm

    Nothing but a speed bump

    That would explain the change in wording, though would still raise some serious questions about the legality of such a demand from the DOJ.

    And that would so much as slow them down how again? When what you are doing is already of questionable legality, one more law bent or broken isn't likely to pose much of a problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whoever, 18 Sep 2014 @ 2:48pm

    Focus on "bulk"

    I would interpret that Apple has received a somewhat limited demand for data. So, a demand under section 215, just not a demand for "bulk" data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2014 @ 2:49pm

    "Perhaps it truly has not received a 215 order, but it did get pressured from the DOJ not to use the original warrant canary language."

    If that were so, one might expect other companies to have been under the same duress. So one question should be - has anyone else changed their wording similarly?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mike Acker (profile), 18 Sep 2014 @ 2:55pm

    participate, OR ELSE

    or else we make it $250,000 per day until you do or until we break you.

    anyone thinking the feds are not serious about collecting SIGINT better think again. one way or another: they will take what they want.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2014 @ 3:26pm

      Re: participate, OR ELSE

      The feds are also responsible for enforcing other laws as well. If you don't cooperate with them here they could find some excuse to go after you for breaking some unrelated law that they wouldn't otherwise have gone after you for like antitrust law or something. It's generally best to cooperate with the government because somewhere they can find something to get you for.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Trevor, 18 Sep 2014 @ 3:59pm

    Well

    The point of the warrant canary was to indicate when something changes.

    The warrant canary is no longer present in its original form. There is now a new, more vague, comment instead.

    Therefore, the warrant canary fulfilled its purpose:

    Something has changed.

    We don't know exactly what changed - but we know that something did change.

    Maybe whatever they got said Apple wasn't allowed to talk about what it was served with, through direct indication or omission.

    TECHNICALLY the notice says the same thing, but does it, really?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2014 @ 5:02pm

    Or perhaps they just replaced it with a bigger canary that covers PRISM data as well as 215 data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 6:58am

    The spooks seem to be goddamn determined to kill off the tech industry.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 8:28am

    your concerned about legality from the DoJ? considering they are among the most corrupt organizations in the USA. They don't even enforce the laws they just break them with no repurcussions as their C in C is equally as contemptable about the laws

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.