A warrant canary is a method by which a communications service provider aims to implicitly inform its users that the provider has been served with a government subpoena despite legal prohibitions on revealing the existence of the subpoena

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

  • baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    23·
    12 days ago

    The FBI doesn’t have anything to do with that. It’s the company or organization that does it. They’re not allowed to positively say that they have been raided, but maybe they get through the loophole by not saying anymore that they haven’t been raided.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      51·
      12 days ago

      Yeah unless you’re in the fifth circuit the judges were not born yesterday. Whatever penalty they threaten you with for notifying folk of the subpoena, guess what you will incur

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        5·
        12 days ago

        Secret raids should be unconstitutional

        It’s one thing to not disclose details, but to hide it’s existence is unhinged

        • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
          11·
          12 days ago

          While I generally agree there are reasons and circumstances when (and I did not sleep last night let me get at least one REM cycle the best example I can think up right now is butt tax evasion) the government might have reasonable cause to keep a raid secret until trial/grand jury

            • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
              1·
              12 days ago

              Yeah, government doesn’t really work when you have bad faith actors abusing the processes. Nothing does. People acting in good faith is kind of the foundational basis assumption of the social contract

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        31·
        12 days ago

        Yeah unless you’re in the fifth circuit the judges were not born yesterday.

        Could have fucking fooled me