Comment by MistahKoala
12 years ago
I was wondering about something similar yesterday; the feasibility of a provider truthfully indicating receipt whilst staying within the confines of the law.
For a 'regular' warrant, a provider can "confirm" or "deny" being served. Presumably they can "deny" being served a secret warrant if one hasn't been served, because the terms of a secret warrant presumably only require them to decline acknowledgement if they've been served, in which case they could "neither confirm nor deny", couldn't they?
You can't reveal that you've been served. What you actually tell people is your problem, not the courts.
its not as simple as that imho.
What if you had a security vulnerability on a server which contains a record of NSL's/subpoenas (for administration purposes), which is conveniently exposed on the internet. A customer could "hack" your server, and obtain the information, thus it isn't the ISP's fault - in fact, the isp claims no knowledge of this vulnerability at all.