The only reason I can think of doing an Ask is so that shills can ask questions to legitimise him in an otherwise very vocal and Florian-hostile community:
"Florian, why is it you spend so much time helping the Open Source world and spreading the Lord's work to the unwashed masses?" +5 Insightful
"I've been a heathen all my life until I read your completely unbiased and thorough articles on Microsoft/Oracle practices. Will you please continue your quest to educate us?" +5 Informative
"You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to maintaining the existing statuses of any warranty canaries)"
What I'm saying is that if it's legal and binding to compel a company or person not to reveal a security letter, I'm sure the language can be arranged to cover canaries too. I can't see a government body going "Yeah, you got us - there's no way for us to get round this loophole of yours".
Some language like "You may not disclose or in any way indicate you've received this letter (including but not limited to altering/amending/removing any warranty canaries)"?
Is the feeling that this would be the line that the government wouldn't cross to protect national security or is the warranty canary simply unreliable?
It is, almost undoubtedly a Russian system.
Are you mostly certain about that or just slightly definite?
I guess you didn't notice the subtle wording.
What they're saying is they'll definitely think about considering it - they're hoping everyone will assume they mean they're committed to open sourcing it but in fact what they're hiding is they mean exactly the opposite.
Malicious Android patent royalty payments?
I hear ya - they should have written strongly worded emails that left no doubt regarding the displeasure they felt at Paypal's actions.
It can be a 6 year long epic with no clear direction and can end with a polarising final release that will leave half the users unsatisfied and the other half proclaiming it a work of art.