[anitil]

I'm unfamiliar with US law, but I thought that with these secret warrants, there would be little distinction between positive action (like telling the press) and negative action (like not continuing a canary).

As in, a judge would briefly think 'nice try' and send you to federal prison. Is this a concern for rsync.net? I assume they would have legal advice that supports your position, and know far more me.

[rsync]

Nobody knows the answer to this.

"As in, a judge would briefly think 'nice try' and send you to federal prison. Is this a concern for rsync.net?"

I'm not sure I parse your sentence correctly, but the only actor here is the US corporation named rsync.net. It is the entity that takes these actions (or lack thereof) and it would be the object of follow-up actions/proceedings/decisions - whatever they might be.

[anitil]

Thanks for the honest answer. I wasn't clear on who would be at risk because I just don't know how these things work. It's a bold position to take.

[colejohnson66]

I could see a contempt of court “charge” against the company until they comply. But being a company, they can’t be jailed, so it’d just be a daily fine.

[colejohnson66]

The idea is that “compelled speech” is unconstitutional as per the First Amendment. As in, they (the government) can force you to not say something, but they can’t force you to say something you don’t want to. AFAIK, it hasn’t been tested in the courts, and if it has, it would be under seal (preventing us from seeing the orders).