Apple's Legal Process Guidelines updated with stricter rules for notifications subpoena

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion

Government notification surveillance is now more difficult with Apple's latest Legal Process Guidelines requiring court-issued search warrants.

Notifications
Notifications



Senator Ron Wyden revealed that the government used notification data obtained from Apple and Google to learn about persons of interest. Apple had previously been under a gag order to keep these requests secret but is now able to share information about the requests.

Only a few days after Apple added the notification information to its Legal Process Guidelines, the company updated them with stricter requirements. Daring Fireball was the first to spot and report the change to Apple's documentation.

From Apple's documentation:

When users allow an application they have installed to receive push notifications, an Apple Push Notification Service (APNs) token is generated and registered to that developer and device. Some apps may have multiple APNs tokens for one account on one device to differentiate between messages and multi-media.

The Apple ID associated with a registered APNs token and associated records may be obtained with an order under 18 U.S.C. 2703(d) or a search warrant.



Previously, the section read the push notification token could be obtained with "a subpoena or greater legal process." Stepping up to requiring a search warrant is a significant change and reflects the same requirements provided by Google.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    Kudos for the change
    muthuk_vanalingamOferronnbyronl
  • Reply 2 of 5
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,306member
    It’s a bit embarrassing that Apple had lower standards for this than Google did, but of course I don’t know the whole story about how that happened. I’m glad they have raised the requirement for this form of sometimes-necessary eavesdropping to be in sync with Google.
    Oferronnbyronl
  • Reply 3 of 5
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    The stance at the beginning should have been get a warrant period. Which would be the same if the government came to your door asking to search.
    ronn
  • Reply 4 of 5
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,141member
    I'm still left wondering how a revelation from a single congressman lets Apple shrug off a "gag order".  Generally speaking, the term "gag order" is a quasi-legal one, implying that some government organization has ordered silence in violation of the First Amendment (and yes, I understand the government doesn't see it that way).  That could be a judge, or it could be a law, or it could be a regulation with the force of law because Congress delegated their authority to some bureaucrat.

    The fact that someone spilled the beans, authorized or not, isn't generally viewed as permission for anyone else to do so.  So how is it that Apple is now allowed to speak freely about it?
    edited December 2023 williamlondon
  • Reply 5 of 5
    mcashwellmcashwell Posts: 2member
    I think the issue boils down to lack of legal recourse at that point.

    If Apple reveals non-public info covered by a gag order the Govt could sue them on the grounds that Apple's action caused the Govt harm.

    But once the info is made public (by someone else) there's no way the Govt. could claim in court that Apple caused them harm by revealing info to the public that was *already* public.
Sign In or Register to comment.