IMO, the author should seek redress to the fullest extent of the law. Government overreach, especially in judicial matters, should not be tolerated and allowing

IMO, the author should seek redress to the fullest extent of the law. Government overreach, especially in judicial matters, should not be tolerated and allowing them to occur, even if the consequence of that is "a paedophile going free" (a result I find unlikely; if the authorities involved are willing to break one set of laws to gather evidence they don't really need, there's no reason to believe that they will not continue to pursue the guy after this evidence is rendered invalid)is an example of the slow erosion of civil liberties by acquiescence to the subtle extension of law enforcement powers. This is, again in my opinion, a more critical and chronic problem than the, admittedly individually more terrible but certainly more isolated, actual crime referenced here. I'm interested in the idea of the warrant canary, however. My own research into it has led me to believe that while they are supported by organizations like the EFF, that support may be more ideologically based than legally sound, and should the government take issue with their use, the author could have found himself in serious trouble for violating FISA (a case of breaking the intent of the law, not the letter; while there is a great deal of faith in the legal system to abnegate the former in favor of the latter, I would still be hesitant to tweak it's nose in such a manner). Are there any legal experts here that could weigh in?