> I don't understand how they can list NSLs in the transparency report Correct. You can list the ones you don't have, but not the ones you do. So to a first

> I don't understand how they can list NSLs in the transparency report Correct. You can list the ones you don't have, but not the ones you do. So to a first approximation, the transparency report will always say "0". Now, the theory behind a warrant canary is that the government can compel your silence but (maybe!) it cannot compel you to make false statements. And if that applies to NSLs and gag orders, and thus makes warrant canaries valid, it might apply to the transparency report too. And in that case maybe we can take the "0" at face value, and we can assume that they haven't received an NSL, but if they do they'll just silently drop that section from the transparency report. (Their warrant canary had some cryptographic signatures, but as far as I know, that's totally irrelevant. If a court decides to compel you to lie and say you haven't received a NSL when you have, then they can compel you to sign the canary too. If they opt not to compel speech, then they won't compel a false transparency report. The crypto is window dressing.) But while on paper it looks to me like the transparency report is probably just as meaningful as the canary, the ham-handed way they've announced it leaves me suspicious.