The problem here is that the warrant canary concept is based on the laws of the US, which don't apply in the UK (duh). Also, the canary has never actually been tested in court AFAIK.
IANAL, but other people who are also NAL should probably be careful when trying to BAL. On 14 January 2017 19:08:49 GMT+00:00, Paul Waring <[email protected]> wrote: >On 14/01/17 18:08, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> believe that it would be an offence under the Act to disclose the >fact that >> one >>> had received a retention notice, because that's how they're worded. >> >> You are, I believe, allowed to stop disclosing that you haven't >received a >> retention notice since stopping such a disclosure is not saying that >you have >> received one. >> >> So, it would be really cool if people could work with their legal >departments >> (or not :-) to send out such "we have not" notices on a timer, and >then stop >> when they do. >> >> I'd understand folk not wanting to do that and appreciate that I >don't run a >> service provider. But still... > >Can retention notices force a provider to explicitly deny their >existence, rather than simply not revealing them? > >-- >Paul Waring >Freelance consultant >https://www.pwaring.com -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
