About 2):

Killing the canary does actually reveal the order, which violates at least the spirit of Section 215. Under the wrong circumstances, that could get you jail time.

On the other hand, making materially false statements after Sarbanes-Oxley can also get you jail time.

So yes, Apple could have realized that they had painted themselves into a corner that they really didn't want to be in. Having said all that, though, my money's still on 3).

> Killing the canary does actually reveal the order, which violates at least the spirit of Section 215.

Of course there's question as to whether the spirit of Section 215 is constitutional. It may be reasonable for the government to force you no to say something.

But can the government force you to knowingly make a false statement?

> But can the government force you to knowingly make a false statement?

No, but they can punish you for telling the truth. The fact that you'll be punished for lying does not negate the punishment for telling the truth, just as the fact that you'll be punished for telling the truth does not give you an excuse to lie.

Was your paragraph intended to be Kafkaesque, or was it just a coincidence?

Coincidence I guess. I've never read Kafka so I don't actually know what his writing style is like.

They can do absolutely anything they want. There are no limits to their power; anything that is not within the bounds of the law can be done first, and then have the law written to permit it later.

There are no checks against their power-- no court, no congressional group, and no group of people is willing to regulate the "watchmen".

Not sure why you're being downvoted. The NSA & Co. are technically subject to the rule of law, but mostly all three powers of the state choose to turn a blind eye to their policing violating the Constitution.

This is the default state of affairs, and it only changes when there is strong public outrage and pressure for the government to do their damn job of watching over the watchmen. Which is seriously screwed up.

> But can the government force you to knowingly make a false statement?

I'm inclined to doubt that they can. But they can keep you locked up for a decade while the case makes its' way to the Supreme Court.

I'm not familiar with US law to really say much, but under Canadian law it'd be illegal for a company to keep the canary if they received a section 215, and I presume it'd be the same in the US. I wonder if this would overwrite that law, and provide them with the ability to lie in their transparency report.

Nope. The warrant canary is a catch-22 of your own making, so you have to take the punishment either way. Either accept the penalty for lying, or accept the penalty for telling the truth. It's your decision which one you'd rather take.

Is there any case where something else would take precedence in case of conflict with a Section 215 order? Lying under oath when being sworn into an office of state, perhaps?

The law doesn't work like that. There is no "precedence". If you are forced to choose between lying under oath, or saying something you're not allowed to say, you're going to have to take the punishment either way. Any judge will recognize that you put yourself in this situation and therefore you are responsible for the outcome.

No in the US you can plead the 5th and simply not respond.

Corporations cannot plead the 5th. That only applies to individuals. And it only applies when there is any reason to believe there is a risk of self-incrimination.

So yes, if you are in a circumstance where pleading the 5th is allowed, then you may plead the 5th and therefore not comment. But in the case of a corporation, or in the case of circumstances where you may not plead the 5th, then you cannot escape punishment by asserting that you are in a catch-22.

As Mitt Romney was fond of saying, "corporations are people"

Sure, and legally in many ways corporations are people. But in this specific case, corporations do not enjoy the protections of the 5th amendment.

[Citation needed]

I learned it from The Illustrated Guide to Law, which is a webcomic about law written and illustrated by a criminal defense lawyer.

The page that states this is http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2600, though the next couple of pages are relevant as well.

This only works if your testimony is the only evidence of the crime.