That's untested though and a lot more people agree that compelling a person to say something untrue would go against all sorts of existing precedent.
If the canary were automated that would be one thing. They might be able to compel a person to do nothing and just let it update on its own, which is why you never want to automate a canary.
That's untested though and a lot more people agree that compelling a person to say something untrue would go against all sorts of existing precedent.
If the canary were automated that would be one thing. They might be able to compel a person to do nothing and just let it update on its own, which is why you never want to automate a canary.
I tend to agree with Schneier on canaries. It's at first a reasonable idea, but courts will almost certainly rule that you violated the order by communicating, in a passive manner, the existence of the order. It can be argued that you took action (ceasing to update the canary) to alert people that you received an order.