[ObviousScience]

Warrant canaries actually are a relevant distinction: the state has the ability to compel you not to reveal something, but rarely if ever the ability to compel you to speak, outside of testifying (at least, in the US).

Dismissing them trying to exercise a different power than the one they're granted by the law as a "technicality" is a disservice to the rule of law. It's not a mere technicality, it's a fundamentally different kind of action.

[pdabbadabba]

> but rarely if ever the ability to compel you to speak, outside of testifying (at least, in the US).

I don't think this is at all true. A U.S. judge would not hesitate to issue an injunction ordering you to update your warrant canary if they thought there was a good reason to do so. I'm not aware of any law (including the Fifth Amendment -- which deals only with self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding) that would prevent them from doing so. Am I missing something?