Warrant canary: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sue Gardner (talk | contribs) m changing customers to users, throughout (libraries are included in warrant canary purview) |
removed "not cited in any court claim" (unsourced since 2008), and removed Ars cite (circular). See Talk. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Antipat4.gif|thumb|right|150px|Library warrant canary relying on active removal designed by [[Jessamyn West (librarian)|Jessamyn West]]]] |
[[File:Antipat4.gif|thumb|right|150px|Library warrant canary relying on active removal designed by [[Jessamyn West (librarian)|Jessamyn West]]]] |
||
A '''warrant canary''' is a method used by a service provider to inform its users that the provider has not been served with a secret government [[subpoena]]. Such subpoenas, including those covered under the [[USA Patriot Act]], provide criminal penalties for revealing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's users. 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. The intention is to allow the provider to inform users of the existence of a subpoena passively, without violating any laws. |
A '''warrant canary''' is a method used by a service provider to inform its users that the provider has not been served with a secret government [[subpoena]]. Such subpoenas, including those covered under the [[USA Patriot Act]], provide criminal penalties for revealing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's users. 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. The intention is to allow the provider to inform users of the existence of a subpoena passively, without violating any laws.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}<!-- "not tested in any court" - removed as circular. Unsourced since 2008, then quoted by Ars Technica in 2013, which was then cited here. See Talk. --> |
||
The idea of using negative pronouncements to thwart secret warrants was first proposed by Steven Schear on the [[cypherpunk]]s [[Electronic mailing lists|mailing list]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cypherpunks-lne-archive/message/5869 |title=Re: ISP Utilty To Cypherpunks? Yahoo! Groups |publisher=Tech.groups.yahoo.com |date=October 31, 2002 |accessdate=2013-06-13}}</ref> and was first implemented by public libraries in response to the [[USA Patriot Act]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2013}} |
The idea of using negative pronouncements to thwart secret warrants was first proposed by Steven Schear on the [[cypherpunk]]s [[Electronic mailing lists|mailing list]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cypherpunks-lne-archive/message/5869 |title=Re: ISP Utilty To Cypherpunks? Yahoo! Groups |publisher=Tech.groups.yahoo.com |date=October 31, 2002 |accessdate=2013-06-13}}</ref> and was first implemented by public libraries in response to the [[USA Patriot Act]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2013}} |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The first commercial use of a warrant canary was by rsync.net. In addition to a [[digital signature]], they provide a recent news headline as proof that the warrant canary was recently posted<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt |title=rsync.net Warrant Canary |publisher=rsync.net |accessdate=June 12, 2013}}</ref> as well as mirroring the posting internationally.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-canary-in-2010-and-beyond.html |title=The Warrant Canary in 2010 and Beyond |first=John |last=Kozubik |date=August 6, 2010 |publisher=Blog.kozubik.com |accessdate=2013-06-13}}</ref> |
The first commercial use of a warrant canary was by rsync.net. In addition to a [[digital signature]], they provide a recent news headline as proof that the warrant canary was recently posted<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt |title=rsync.net Warrant Canary |publisher=rsync.net |accessdate=June 12, 2013}}</ref> as well as mirroring the posting internationally.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-canary-in-2010-and-beyond.html |title=The Warrant Canary in 2010 and Beyond |first=John |last=Kozubik |date=August 6, 2010 |publisher=Blog.kozubik.com |accessdate=2013-06-13}}</ref> |
||
On November 5, 2013, Apple became the most prominent company to publicly state that it had never received an order for user data under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.<ref name=ars1/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovernmentinforequests2.pdf |title=Report on Government Access Requests |publisher=Apple.com |date=November 5, 2013 |accessdate=2013-11-05}}</ref> Previously, mobile security company Lookout had stated that it had not received any national security letters and had "not been required by a FISA court to keep any secrets that are not in this transparency report."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lookout.com/transparency |title=Transparency @ Lookout |publisher=Lookout.com |accessdate=2013-11-05}}</ref> |
On November 5, 2013, Apple became the most prominent company to publicly state that it had never received an order for user data under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.<ref name=ars1>{{cite web|last=Farivar|first=Cyrus|title=Apple takes strong privacy stance in new report, publishes rare “warrant canary”|url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/apple-takes-strong-privacy-stance-in-new-report-publishes-rare-warrant-canary/|publisher=ArsTechnica.com|accessdate=5 November 2013|date=5|month=November|year=2013<!-- Please don't use for "not tested in any court" claim - circular. See Talk-->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/131105reportongovernmentinforequests2.pdf |title=Report on Government Access Requests |publisher=Apple.com |date=November 5, 2013 |accessdate=2013-11-05}}</ref> Previously, mobile security company Lookout had stated that it had not received any national security letters and had "not been required by a FISA court to keep any secrets that are not in this transparency report."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lookout.com/transparency |title=Transparency @ Lookout |publisher=Lookout.com |accessdate=2013-11-05}}</ref> |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
Revision as of 04:01, 15 November 2013
A warrant canary is a method used by a service provider to inform its users that the provider has not been served with a secret government subpoena. Such subpoenas, including those covered under the USA Patriot Act, provide criminal penalties for revealing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's users. 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. The intention is to allow the provider to inform users of the existence of a subpoena passively, without violating any laws.[citation needed]
The idea of using negative pronouncements to thwart secret warrants was first proposed by Steven Schear on the cypherpunks mailing list,[1] and was first implemented by public libraries in response to the USA Patriot Act.[citation needed]
The first commercial use of a warrant canary was by rsync.net. In addition to a digital signature, they provide a recent news headline as proof that the warrant canary was recently posted[2] as well as mirroring the posting internationally.[3]
On November 5, 2013, Apple became the most prominent company to publicly state that it had never received an order for user data under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.[4][5] Previously, mobile security company Lookout had stated that it had not received any national security letters and had "not been required by a FISA court to keep any secrets that are not in this transparency report."[6]
References
- ^ "Re: ISP Utilty To Cypherpunks? Yahoo! Groups". Tech.groups.yahoo.com. October 31, 2002. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
- ^ "rsync.net Warrant Canary". rsync.net. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
- ^ Kozubik, John (August 6, 2010). "The Warrant Canary in 2010 and Beyond". Blog.kozubik.com. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
- ^ Farivar, Cyrus (5). "Apple takes strong privacy stance in new report, publishes rare "warrant canary"". ArsTechnica.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ "Report on Government Access Requests" (PDF). Apple.com. November 5, 2013. Retrieved 2013-11-05.
- ^ "Transparency @ Lookout". Lookout.com. Retrieved 2013-11-05.
 | This Internet-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This law enforcement–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |