[AstralStorm]

Warrant canary depends on agreed upon inaction, which shields it somewhat. You cannot exactly compel speech by a gag order.

This, being an active process, if found out, is violating a gag order by direct action.

[votepaunchy]

Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. It’s too clever but no more clever than what Israel is requiring here.

[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"

[gruez]

>Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document.

No, they can simply not publish a warrant canary in the future, which will tip people off if they've been publishing it regularly in the past.