On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:58:36 +0000, DASDBILL2 wrote: >Apple's lawyers are very clever. As lawyers all know, show them a law (e.g., >Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act) and they will show you a loophole (e.g., >warrant canary). > Perhaps the DoHS lawyers are also clever. I wonder whether they'd be able to construe any affirmative step taken by an Apple executive to smother the canary in the event of a Section 215 warrant as a violation of the gag order.
>N.B. : I have never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot >Act. I would expect to challenge such an order if served on me. > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Paul Gilmartin" >Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 5:41:59 PM > >On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:19:55 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote: > >>Microsoft finally woke up. >> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/05/microsoft-u-s-government-is-a-potential-security-threat/ >> >> >Related: > > >http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/05/apple-slips-in-warrant-canary-to-warn-users-of-future-compliance-with-patriot-act-section-215-information-requests/ > -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
