[powersnail]

That’s kinda my point. A canary removes all the middle ground between a yes and no. Which means no comment = yes.

The parent comment implies that in such a case “no comment” is not compliant with the law, as it informs the inquirer.

Hence the only way to comply is to answer “no”, which is a lie.

[TheRealPomax]

Except "no comment" is not a yes. It's a "whether we do or don't, you are not part of that process and not privy to that information either way".

[powersnail]

The point of the canary, is to turn any non-answer into a practical, or at least a tentative, "yes". If you no longer see an explicit "no", it means "yes".

[TheRealPomax]

So the point of the canary is to turn a proper response into something that's flat out wrong? That seems incredibly counter-productive.

[Dylan16807]

Wrong? What do you mean?

The difference between a canary and a "no comment" is that "no comment" is an extremely common thing to say whether an allegation is true or not so it's not very suspicious, while stopping a canary is very suspicious.

So it's like the scenario you outlined earlier, but more effective.

[TheRealPomax]

No, it isn't. It's pretending that "no comment" means something it doesn't. Just because you want it to mean "yes" doesn't mean it means that. It means "we are not going to comment on this, because we have a sane legal department and we're not going to give you any information one way or another".

If you think "no comment" means either yes or no, you're pretending to know something you don't, and you should absolutely stop and go "wait, why am I lying to myself? And why am I believing my own lie?"

[Dylan16807]

Huh?

You're the one that said no comment was suspicious! I said something weaker than that, that it's not very suspicious.

I'm not the one that said a canary failing is a yes. I said it was significantly more suspicious than a no comment.