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

from the unclear dept

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.

To date, Apple has not received any orders for bulk data.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Last fall, we wrote about how Apple has placed a warrant canary in its first ever Transparency Report, noting: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'sthe 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 And, contrary to Roberts' reporting, Section 215 isthe 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 seemsthat 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 somethinghere. Perhaps it truly has not received a 215 order, but itget 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.

Filed Under: bulk data, patriot act, warrant canary

Companies: apple