How does the government prove that you're communicating something when you've never explicitly said 'this is a warranty canary, it's ommission next year means that something is up'.
Take Apple. It had something that was assumed to be a warranty canary. It's no longer there. People made assumptions. Has Apple done anything wrong?
prove that you're communicating something when you've never explicitly said
Because courts aren't that dumb. Blackmail is illegal, too, and frequently the person demanding blackmail doesn't explicitly say "give me money or I publish this evidence." (It's legal to publish information, and it's legal to get paid not to publish it, but it's illegal to demand money not to publish it.)
Take Apple. It had something that was assumed to be a warranty canary. It's no longer there. People made assumptions. Has Apple done anything wrong?