Apple has placed a hidden warning on the official report.
The American law of The Patriot Act provides that the authorities may send a secret order to Internet companies to spy on the user. At the same time, part 215 of the law provides that the company has no right to disclose the existence of such a warrant.
This is a situation known as "trick 22". Fortunately, there is one way that a company can elegantly circumvent such a ban. This is the so-called “testimony of the canary” ( warrant canary ), when information is transmitted through silence or denial.
In a Transparency Report published yesterday, Apple has classically demonstrated this method.
On page 5 of the official document, the note to the table on the number of requests for the release of information contains the phrase “Apple has never received an order in accordance with Part 215 of The Patriot Act. We will probably dispute such an order if received. ”
')
In the case of obtaining a secret order, Apple has the right to challenge it, but does not have the right to disclose the fact of receipt of such a warrant. But! In this case, the above phrase will disappear from the next report.
Such methods of dealing with secrecy can be applied by other companies. For example, Internet service providers can notify users every day that they are not being monitored. As an option, the user at a certain moment may be notified of the dates when he was not under surveillance.
The idea of ​​sending messages through silence or the absence of denial was recently proposed in connection with the discussion of the problem of mass surveillance under secrecy. Unfortunately, this idea has not yet been tested in court, so that its legality is not yet guaranteed.
This is a situation known as "trick 22". Fortunately, there is one way that a company can elegantly circumvent such a ban. This is the so-called “testimony of the canary” ( warrant canary ), when information is transmitted through silence or denial.
In a Transparency Report published yesterday, Apple has classically demonstrated this method.
On page 5 of the official document, the note to the table on the number of requests for the release of information contains the phrase “Apple has never received an order in accordance with Part 215 of The Patriot Act. We will probably dispute such an order if received. ”
')
In the case of obtaining a secret order, Apple has the right to challenge it, but does not have the right to disclose the fact of receipt of such a warrant. But! In this case, the above phrase will disappear from the next report.
Such methods of dealing with secrecy can be applied by other companies. For example, Internet service providers can notify users every day that they are not being monitored. As an option, the user at a certain moment may be notified of the dates when he was not under surveillance.
The idea of ​​sending messages through silence or the absence of denial was recently proposed in connection with the discussion of the problem of mass surveillance under secrecy. Unfortunately, this idea has not yet been tested in court, so that its legality is not yet guaranteed.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/201040/
All Articles