I'm pretty sure I have some truecrypt containers I've forgotten the passwords to, sure hope I never get arrested!
I am not saying they're not worthy of that contempt, merely that they don't care if they are, just if you're showing contempt for the process and violating the order
But to say that a canary I set up a decade ago is contemptuous of a court filing made a month ago is ridiculous.
No it's not: You show contempt for the idea they could demand you silently turn over information. It's seething out of your posts here on HN even.
I don't think it's right they can do this, but I do think it's quite clearly preemptively raising a middle finger to the whole thing; it is "I cross my fingers behind my back so my swears don't count" type of stuff that judges don't accept and toss you in jail for.
You don't get to outthink and out maneuver this crap: You have to beat it in the system.
They can most certainly hold you in contempt because you got your self in that mess.
>look at how email retention works.
Document retention policies are allowed because otherwise the civil court system would be prohibitively expensive (lawyers have to read all your email once you get sued basically). Once you get a court order that says to, you have to stop destroying email, etc, disabling your automated destruction systems.
The only reason to have canaries is to violate the terms of gag orders. Judges aren't sympathetic to that.