Comment on RFC7169 – No Secrecy Afforded X.509 extension silently published (on 2014-04-01)parentComments−ealexhudson12ySimple, elegant, legally unworkable/wrong.−Lockal12yFYI, this sentence refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary which provides a legal way to bypass criminal penalties for disclosing information.−duaneb12yActually, the legality is unproven. There's still information being passed from the person served with the warrant and the person being spied on.−zmanian12yThe legality is unproven but Apple's General Counsel's office has embraced it. It is an increasingly mainstream idea. It should be standardized.−duaneb12yWould you really give advice to hold the court in contempt?−mpyne12yIt may be legal, but the "contempt of court" ruling that will inevitably and immediately follow is also legal.
Comments
Simple, elegant, legally unworkable/wrong.
FYI, this sentence refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary which provides a legal way to bypass criminal penalties for disclosing information.
Actually, the legality is unproven. There's still information being passed from the person served with the warrant and the person being spied on.
The legality is unproven but Apple's General Counsel's office has embraced it. It is an increasingly mainstream idea. It should be standardized.
Would you really give advice to hold the court in contempt?
It may be legal, but the "contempt of court" ruling that will inevitably and immediately follow is also legal.