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

from the unclear dept

Thu, Sep 18th 2014 2:35pm — Mike Masnick

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.

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

Filed Under: bulk data, patriot act, warrant canary
Companies: apple

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2014 @ 2:44pm

Or they provided data without having been ordered to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 6:36am
  
  Re:
  Leaving the backdoor open and unlocked .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re: participate, OR ELSE
    live on your knees in fear, or make a brief stand on your feet
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: Well
  Seriously, I see people standing around a dead canary going "huh... I wonder what this means?"
  
  The canary died! Good lord people get out of the mine! RUN!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 19 Sep 2014 @ 10:31am
    
    Re: Re: Well
    It may have just been sick. We should try another canary.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- beltorak (profile), 18 Sep 2014 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re:
  then why not just append a new statement?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  Or perhaps they just replaced it with a bigger canary that covers PRISM data as well as 215 data.
  Like a warrant ostrich?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2014 @ 6:58am

The spooks seem to be goddamn determined to kill off the tech industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]