[x1798DE]

Not exactly sure of the legal situation about canaries, but generally they are constructed as a dead man's switch type situation, where you make a commitment to do something if something else hasn't happened. The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things.

Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy.

In any case, I think that you may be able to play chicken with them over warrant canaries, since the people who use NSLs probably aren't interested in giving anyone standing to challenge them in court.

[danielweber]

The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things.

Again: if you are told not to communicate something, you don't communicate it. How come the CEOs who try all sorts of crazy things to work around insider trading haven't tried this?

Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy.

You have no idea what is going on with Reddit or Apple. I know the EFF is eager to get people to sacrifice themselves on this altar. That says more about the EFF than about the state of law.

I think being put under a security order you can't discuss is a serious liberty problem. It doesn't follow that some crazy scheme is the right reply.

[jbpetersen]

Insider trading law doesn't wait for a magic piece of paper to cast a spell on you.

My guess is the insider canary would be secondary to the fact that you established a protocol for making use of one in the first place.

[oldmanjay]

Are you making some sort of case against canaries? The most direct reading of this thread is that you're shouting at clouds, because you've put forth no arguments, just contrary opinions.