[8note]

the canary notification method is a lack of updates, not a specific update.

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"

[Fnoord]

Yes, the equivalent of a warning canary would be that Google pays the Israeli government a set of payment every month such as 3100 shekels (for +31, NL) and then suddenly November 2025 they stop issuing it. That would mean there's a legal investigation targeting Google by the Dutch prosecutor (OM) involving Israeli data.

I suspect they didn't go for this route as it is too slow.

[verdverm]

I would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made

[nkrisc]

The legal theory is that in the US the first amendment prevents the government from forcing you to make a false update. I don’t know if it’s ever been tested.

As I understand, this theory wouldn’t even hold up in other countries where you could be compelled to make such a false update.

[yencabulator]

What if I, sometimes, annually paint a canvas with an artistic interpretation of a canary bird? Can a government compel me to make an artistic expression with specific content, at my own expense? What if I'm just not in the right kind of creative mood to make it a good painting?

Or maybe I can bill the government for the compelled artwork -- I'm afraid I'm tremendously expensive as an artist.

[hrimfaxi]

Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.

[joshuamorton]

More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.

[yencabulator]

As far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company.

Do you have a more custom example in mind?

[joshuamorton]

All sorts of consent decrees, a huge amount of union and workplace law requires things to be posted for employees.

[yencabulator]

For employee things, I can understand being required to notify parties in agreements the company has entered into. As far as I understand, consent degrees are settlements and as such a mutually-agreed mechanism for ending a lawsuit early; their terms are whatever the parties negotiate and do not come from the government.

[Andrex]

Ah, that was confusing to me. Thank you.

[verdverm]

yea, I get that, but my gut tells me this doesn't pass the sniff test

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

[kortilla]

Inaction is not action.

[verdverm]

The choice to cease perform an act, when you have been consistently doing it, is itself an action

[kortilla]

No, making a choice to do nothing is not considered action by any legal definition.

[shkkmo]

And this would be why warrant canaries aren't seen as a proven legal shield yet.