> The EFF believes you can't be compelled to lie

This always sounded fishy to me. When a NSL is served, they order you to keep silent about it, so you can't tell e.g. your own CISO. But if the CISO comes and asks, you're not ordered to lie and say you haven't received one? So if the CISO just asks you every morning, the NSL's order of keeping silent is defeated? I can't believe the courts and the executive that support NSLs in the first place would allow such a loophole.

If you find yourself in such a situation, you should consult with an attorney: Telling your CISO may put you and them at risk that you cannot understand.

Firstly, if it is illegal to tell the CISO about the NSL, it may also be illegal to tell some details to an attorney. At least, by going to an attorney, you're already taking some legal risk, in addition to incurring the extralegal wrath of the FBI.

Secondly, the FBI can serve an NSL to the CEO, a separate one to the CISO, and so on down the chain to the tech people whose job would be to fulfill the order. They can choose to serve one or some or all of these orders, and they can order some served people to cooperate and others to keep silent or lie to one another. It's not feasible to expect all of these people, some of whom are not officers of the company, to consult lawyers.

The FBI has some good material on this subject[1] and specifically permits you to disclose the NSL to your attorney so that you can comply with it.

Something important to understand is that non-disclosure is not an automatic feature of the NSL, but that disclosure binds the parties to the terms in the NSL.

[1]: https://vault.fbi.gov/National%20Security%20Letters%20%28NSL...

> Secondly, the FBI can serve an NSL to the CEO, a separate one to the CISO, and so on down the chain to the tech people whose job would be to fulfill the order

Yes, they can, however that's not what happens. The general council may advise the CEO to disclose certain requirements or aspects of the NSL to the CISO or to other parties for the purposes of complying with the NSL. They will almost certainly not recommend disclosing or distributing the NSL "down the chain to the tech people".

> They will almost certainly not recommend disclosing or distributing the NSL "down the chain to the tech people".

I meant they might target the tech people directly from the start - or someone who isn't a C-level executive, anyway - if they think the CxOs would go to a lawyer and the lower level people would just comply.

No. They will deliver the letter to the secretary, general council or a named director. They will not send it to "the tech people" directly.

While maybe literally true, "risk that you cannot understand" is a little overthreatening. Are you implying extrajudicial financial ruin, torture, murder? I doubt it, so what?

I'm trying not to imply anything, because every situation is different. Nevertheless, violating a federal order could have serious consequences, and if you need advice on this subject, you should talk to an attorney about it.

Do you think the average retained attorney will be well-versed in the subtleties of NSL disclosure?

The point being made upthread is that there is no black and white guidance, there is no secret NSL Guide Book for attornies.

Yes, actually I do. Gag orders aren't unique to the NSL and if your attorney believes the case is too complicated they will be able to help you find a specialist.

The FBI does in fact has some guidance that your attorney will be able to locate[1]

[1]: https://vault.fbi.gov/National%20Security%20Letters%20%28NSL...

Being allowed to say "I received between 0 and 999 NSLs affecting 0 to 999 customers" doesn't really convey the same information as a canary.

How so? Enabling the canary only tells you that one or more was served/obeyed, and can't be used again. To me, 0-999 also tells me that one or more was served/obeyed.

Is the rule actually 0-999? Because they'd have to get 1000 or more before you knew there was 1 or more.

It is four pages, the first page is mostly dedications and the last page is mostly blank. It will not take you much time to read the remaining two pages and develop your own understanding.

Here is how I am parsing it:

The Office of the Attorney General proposes two options:

1. Separate category reports for NSL, FISA content, and FISA non-content requests and customers affected.

2. A single report for all NSL and FISA requests, and a report for customers affected.

If you want to distinguish between the different kind of request (category 1) then you can report in blocks of 1,000, while if you don't, you can report in blocks of 250.

With how untested warrant canaries are in the courts, I wonder how a more detailed scheme would work. Every day making 1000 public statements, each of the form "We have received no more than N NSLs."

I don't think a court will be impressed with that.