> How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet?
Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual issue to court.
But when dealing with a corporate entity, who do you go after? Since this sort of coercion seems to only work on an individual level, going after the entire corporate entity won't invoke the same emotional response.
I don't know how the law works. But my completely-unfounded guess is that whoever is supposed to authorize this and who is refusing would be the one convicted.
You give them limited access and rights, to do what you want them to do. Here, they would have access to communications with government agencies, ability to tweet users or groups thereof, and perhaps responsibility for canary management.
Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual issue to court.