For what it's worth, that's what the Whisper Systems people seem to think, after consulting their attorneys.

Simply put, it hasn't been tested in court yet, so any responses, no matter how well informed, are speculation.

No doubt -- but some are more informed than others, so I'd generally go with the advice of council with experience in the relevant fields.

Assuming that a judge would go so far as to compel them to make a false statement, which would be unconstitutional.

I like how on the one hand we have people talking about secret courts and the government wantonly ignoring the constitution whenever it pleases them, and then on the other hand we have arguments that a pedantic technicality will somehow prevent the government from getting what it wants.

Are you sure there is a law again making false statements to the general public? I think police lie all the time in sting operations or as undercover ops.

It's the compelling that is ostensibly unconstitutional.

I think the current US law is that lawmen can try to compel you to not discuss a subject, and try to jail you if you do, however, they cannot try to tell you to speak falsehoods about a subject.

Could a judge compel someone to give over access to the canary system, so that law enforcement would be the one falsely updating the canary? IAdefinitelyNAL, I've seen mentioned here and there that the police are allowed to lie while carrying out their investigations and duties.

Do you mean a false statement in public? Or in a court of law?

But the one advantage this system can rely on is that the legal system is slow and you can resist by simply clogging up the system to such an extent that the canary expires.

Worked for Apple.