Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. It’s too clever but no more clever than what Israel is requiring here.
you update your canary to say that nothing has changed, at a known cadence.
if you ever dont make the update, readers know that the canary has expired, and so you have been served a gag order warrant.
changing or removing the canary in response to a warrant is illegal. not changing it is legal.
for an equivalent cloudwatch setup, its checking the flag for "alarm when there's no points"
Do you have a more custom example in mind?
I think there are other places where "government mandated corporation inform people of their rights" is a thing, especially with things like data use and sharing.
In terms of consent decrees, that was the wrong example. But lots of judgements do involve various notification requirements.
But that still sort of connects (at least in my mind) to health warnings etc.
What do you think of this angle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45892680
It's a choice you make and action you take either way, be it not updating a canary or sending a covert financial transaction
That it has not been tested in court is why it's still a "theory" (hypothesis?)
My hope is that a jury of our peers would stay closer to the spirit than the letter of the law
As I understand, this theory wouldn’t even hold up in other countries where you could be compelled to make such a false update.
Or maybe I can bill the government for the compelled artwork -- I'm afraid I'm tremendously expensive as an artist.
I suspect they didn't go for this route as it is too slow.
No, they can simply not publish a warrant canary in the future, which will tip people off if they've been publishing it regularly in the past.