&gt; If you are required not to communicate something, then you don&#x27;t communicate it. Period.<p>Legal opinions vary on this subject. Some feel (as you apparently do) that an order not to reveal the receipt of a NSL would require someone to leave a &quot;warrant canary&quot; in place. Others[1] feel that the US legal system does not permit the government to require someone to lie. The only way to find out for sure is for the government to prosecute someone for deleting a warrant canary[2] and either succeed or fail. This has never happened.<p>Your basic point that &quot;the judicial system isn&#x27;t stupid, and you can&#x27;t just violate the rules but with a squirrelly definition and expect to get away with it&quot; is true in general. Your example of insider trading laws is correct. But there are reasonable arguments that a warrant canary is a legitimate legal tactic.<p>[1] For example, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;deeplinks&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;warrant-canary-faq" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;deeplinks&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;warrant-canary-faq</a><p>[2] Or to make enough of a threat to do so that the person has standing for a declarative judgement.