It’s quite common for people involved in criminal trials to have warrrants issues for all manner or electronic records - email, social media, etc. It’s just as common for there to be a proscription on telling the end-user that such warrants have been received. Nothing abnormal about this at all.
I’m all for companies standing up for users in these sorts of cases. In the Apple ecosystem, for example, they *cannot* comply with such orders because of encryption for which there is no back door. Many email platforms do this as well. And this is a perfectly valid occasion to tell the government to pound sand.
Remember the San Bernardino shooter? Where the FBI found the iPhone of the shooter and demanded that Apple break into it? Apple told them to pound sand, we can’t do it and even if we could we won’t. They are ended up having to pay an Israeli security firm to break into it. They didn’t break the encryption; rather, they used an exploit.
The firm I use for offsite storage, rsync.net, for example, uses this warrant canary:
And everything I ship to them is encrypted by me.
My axiom in the digital world has always been: if you want guaranteed privacy, you need to pay for it. If it is free of charge, you are the product and you have ZERO privacy.
Twitter is a free service and, well, ya get what you pay for.
www.politico.com
