UK backs down in Apple privacy row, US says
Privacy is an important matter, but so too is national security, whatever that may mean in any particular context. It was this article on the BBC that reminded Coco that he should make a disclosure before it became too late to do so.
As one who provides a self-service encryption tool1, it is remotely possible that Coco may be served a notice under the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA)2. When served such a notice an offence arises should disclosure of the existence or content of the warrant be made known:
Offence of making unauthorised disclosure3
(1)It is an offence for—
(a)a telecommunications operator who is under a duty by virtue of section 170 to assist in giving effect to a bulk acquisition warrant, or
(b)any person employed or engaged for the purposes of the business of such an operator,
to disclose to any person, without reasonable excuse, the existence or contents of the warrant.
Coco would not wish to unnecessarily cause offence, so looked further. There is no corresponding offence when, if no notice has been issued, that the potential offender discloses that no notice has been issued. Coco therefore wishes to make it known that Coco has not received any notice under the IPA. This declaration and manifestation shall only remain true for as long as Coco is free from any obligation under the IPA to hide the fact of the existence of a warrant.
The question now arises, what if Coco receives such a notice? This declaration is then manifestly untrue, and in order that Coco should not be found with a lie in his mouth, he must remove the declaration forthwith. The difficulty then is that in the absence of the declaration that Coco has not received such a notice, you, dear reader, would be quite right to infer the existence of such a notice.
That leaves Coco unsure, Coco has not told you about the existence of a warrant, but Coco has said that he would no longer be able to confirm that no notice has been received,
Will our tele-communications providers take note, Coco wonders, and if they are able to do so make a declaration on their websites that they have received no such warrant? Or is it already too late, all that we say and do is already being reported by them, and we have no means of knowing it?