Every request we have received. The number is zero.
Zero is a real number and this is a real report, not a placeholder page waiting for content. Below it is the part most transparency pages leave out: the things we have not yet earned the right to publish.
The full record, since the project began.
| Category | Received | Complied | Data produced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subpoenas and equivalent orders for subscriber data | 0 | 0 | None |
| Search warrants and production orders | 0 | 0 | None |
| Interception or real-time collection orders | 0 | 0 | None |
| Preservation requests | 0 | 0 | None |
| Emergency disclosure requests | 0 | 0 | None |
| National-security process, where reportable | 0 | 0 | None |
| Content-removal or blocking demands | 0 | 0 | None |
| Requests to modify or target a build | 0 | 0 | None |
| Requests reaching the early-access email list | 0 | 0 | None |
Reporting period: from the start of the project to 28 July 2026. Categories are listed exhaustively — including the ones we have never received — so that a future non-zero entry appears in a table whose shape did not change to accommodate it.
Worth reading alongside the zeros, because the zeros will not stay zero forever. For the messenger there is no account, no identifier, no address, no sender field, no contact list and nothing written to a disk — so an order reaching us produces essentially nothing. The one genuine record we hold is the early-access email list on this website. The full policy, category by category →
No warrant canary. Deliberately.
A warrant canary is a statement that no secret order has been received, republished periodically, on the theory that removing it discloses something the operator was forbidden to say.
We are not running one, and the reasons are worth giving because canaries are widely treated as a mark of seriousness:
- The legal theory has never been tested in court. It rests on a distinction between compelled silence and compelled speech that no judgment has yet confirmed.
- Practitioners do not expect it to work. Lawyers consulted publicly by others in this field have said they expect removing a canary to carry the same consequences as an explicit disclosure — which means it is not a way out, it is the same act with extra steps.
- An order can simply forbid triggering it. A secret order that compels silence can compel maintaining the canary, and then the signal is worse than absent: it is actively false while looking healthy.
We are not going to build a user's safety on a gesture. If we cannot say something, we will not construct an elaborate way of hinting at it — we will build the system so that there is nothing worth compelling in the first place, which is the whole design. This decision is on the list for counsel to confirm or overturn; it is currently an engineering judgment and we would like it to be a legal one.
The entries that do not exist yet.
A transparency report from a company that has never been asked for anything is a thin document. Rather than pad it, here is exactly what is missing and what has to happen for each item to appear.
AGPL-3.0-or-later, currently private. We will not link a repository before it is genuinely published and reviewable — a dead link or a half-open mirror is worse than an honest “not yet”.Designing so compulsion yields little beats promising to resist it.
The strongest transparency position is not a pledge to fight. A person can be compelled, gagged or replaced, and a pledge is only as durable as the person making it. What survives is a system with nothing worth taking.
Avano has no accounts, no phone numbers and no social graph on the server. The relay holds sealed, identical blocks under random codes, with no sender field, reached over Tor, and writes nothing to a disk. An order to “produce the records for account X” has no X to name.
That is the claim. The page that tells you which parts of it you could verify without trusting us — and the answer is currently not many — is here, and we would rather you read that one first.