First, by citing NSLs, you're unintentionally proving the point of the article. Google recently began disclosing how many NSLs it received. NSLs do not require the recipient to lie.
Second, two courts have ruled that NSL gag orders are unconstitutional (this is before the Ninth Circuit now with a summer briefing schedule). The <secretsauce> lie order you speculate, with any evidence, exists would be extra doubleplusungood unconstitutional.
(BTW, I was the first to disclose less than two weeks ago that Google is litigating two different NSL cases. I daresay I'm familiar with the topic...)
Second, two courts have ruled that NSL gag orders are unconstitutional (this is before the Ninth Circuit now with a summer briefing schedule). The <secretsauce> lie order you speculate, with any evidence, exists would be extra doubleplusungood unconstitutional.
(BTW, I was the first to disclose less than two weeks ago that Google is litigating two different NSL cases. I daresay I'm familiar with the topic...)