>I think with the claims you are making the onus is on you that one could get away with this. Fine. Here is the onus on me to show this: “Warrant canaries h

>I think with the claims you are making the onus is on you that one could get away with this. Fine. Here is the onus on me to show this: “Warrant canaries have never been tested in court, but no case law suggests that they are in any way illegal,” says Nate Cardozo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “In fact, existing law suggests that if a court were to examine a prohibition on warrant canaries, it would likely conclude that any such prohibition would run afoul of the First Amendment, even in the case of NSL and FISA requests.” Source: https://gigaom.com/2014/10/10/are-warrant-canaries-legal-twitter-wants-to-save-techs-warning-signal-of-government-spying/ https://gigaom.com/2014/10/10/are-warrant-canaries-legal-twi... Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees with my referenced link, to show otherwise. Personally, I am fine with following the legal reading and guidance of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and you should be too. The Warrant Canary article Wikipedia says, summarizing its three references: "Warrant canaries have been found to be legal by the United States Justice Department, so long as they are passive in their notifications." Please link to any court cases to the contrary.