How could a warrant canary work when you don't know which exit node you will connect to?

> Aren't there warrant canaries set up to prevent this?

No, because the police will tell you to not tell anyone about the court order. If you do so (for example using a warrant canary), you will be in big trouble. Those canaries were always a convenient fiction, almost to the point of it being entirely in question whether or not this fiction was created in good faith.

You can always be in trouble by the police for any reason or no reason at all. The question is law. The notion of a warrant canary is that the police cannot compel you to state that you are not under a court order. They can annoy you to lie, and they can always break the law, but they cannot legally force you to. To claim that regardless of this, the police can compel you to lie, is tantamount to saying that the rule of law has failed.

( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq )

> To claim that regardless of this, the police can compel you to lie, is tantamount to saying that the rule of law has failed.

Your life quality will take a sharp negative dive if you don't conform to the spirit of what they ask you. Whether or not such things are legal really is immaterial: You will be in trouble anyway. As such, I dislike advice that leans on what the law says.

Has this ever been tested in court?

Not to my knowledge.

Which can mean "no company has tried" or "no TLA has tried".

They cannot compel someone to re-authorize a deadman switches' canary.

If the canary doesn't receive a signed message within X amount of days, the canary sings.

Nobody can force someone to do work or self-incriminate.

Can those warrant canaries holders who follow police/court orders, be sued for false advertising?

Seems like a catch 22 that it's a lose-lose.

If being sued for false advertising was a real risk, advertising would be a lot more truthful :)