[tw04]

>Ars inventing their own colour here. This is simply not true.

What are you talking about? Right at the top of the subpoena it literally says in bold and all caps, and I quote:

>YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA INDEFNITELY AS ANY SUCH DISCLOSURE COULD INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.

[t0mas88]

The "requested" part sounds like it's not mandatory, otherwise they would have used something like "you're not allowed to..." or similar language.

[namibj]

Sounds like a notice that disclosure could result in outcomes that make the discloser liable of (the crime? of) interfering-with-an-investigation.

And thus to avoid that risk, to think twice before disclosing. Disclosure would only be punished if the specific circumstances actually result in legally-considered-(unlawful-)interference.

[walletdrainer]

There needs to be specific intent to obstruct, merely sharing the subpoena does not demonstrate this.

“Hey, we got this subpoena. You better quickly wipe all your drives” probably would.

[AlienRobot]

The "supposed" part as well.

[walletdrainer]

You are absolutely allowed to do whatever you want with the subpoena unless you’re ordered by some authority not to do so.