3 ms·

I don't buy framing that as a purely political issue; it's exceptionally rare that anything fits so neatly into a box like that. Furthermore, boiling down the d

by nbadg 11y ago

I don't buy framing that as a purely political issue; it's exceptionally rare that anything fits so neatly into a box like that. Furthermore, boiling down the deprecation of the original Skype protocol at the hands of post-acquisition Microsoft is pretty far removed by what I'm saying; there's just too much to account for. Your characterization of a coercive state just isn't how the US political world works. Black suits don't show up at a developer's door with a gun and tell them "you must introduce technical vulnerabilities in your protocol and/or implementation or we're going to kill you". That's Hollywood. In reality, the government puts indirect economic pressure on Microsoft, and this has a measurable impact on the command chain there, and eventually a "favorable" outcome (from the government's perspective) is reached. This may even be internally justified for "performance reasons" (and it was). The plain fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, a technical vulnerability was implemented somewhere in the Skype protocol + implementation + system chain. That is still a technical deficiency, even if, as I said in my original reply, it is influenced by economic and political factors.

Retric 11y ago
Lavabit was ordered to provide the SSL key in machine readable format by noon, August 5 or face a fine of $5000 per day. A phone call which from the IRS is defiantly backed up by people with guns even if nobody is directly in your face about it. Suggesting people in Black suits need to show up when I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. http://www.dailydot.com/news/email-anonymous-hushmail-lavabit-nsa/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/email-anonymous-hushmail-lavabi... PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit The service suspended its operations on August 8, 2013 after US government ordered it to turn over its Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) private keys. Levison also stated he has even been banned from sharing some information with his lawyer. Levison and his lawyer made two requests to Judge Claude M. Hilton to unseal the records, both of which were denied.
- nbadg 11y ago
  > Suggesting people in Black suits need to show up when But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I was responding to: > What would you do if someone held a gun to your head and ordered you to either give them a backdoor, go to jail, or be shot? Which is not reality. That's not the kind of coercion you experience. The government applied (in this case direct) economic pressure, and Lavabit made a business decision that a fine of $5000 per day (and potential future legal problems) was an unacceptable operating expense. Goodbye, Lavabit. And once again, a protocol (like SMTP) that doesn't inherently protect agency is, in my opinion, a technical problem. That email requires SSL for confidentiality is a security vulnerability. You don't fix that by taking on the political system (I mean you could, but good luck). You fix it by engineering a protocol that isn't vulnerable in the first place. My point is that we need to stop waiting for the politics to change, and solve the problem ourselves. That's going to mean questioning some very entrenched protocols, like SMTP. So be it.
  - nickff 11y ago
    When you say he faced "potential legal problems", what you really mean is that they were threatening to send him to jail, or if he failed to cooperate with the brave boys in blue, they would shoot him. Fines are enforced in essentially the same way: either pay, go to the small box, or die. It is unpleasant to describe things this way, but using euphemisms to assuage our consciences does not change the reality of the system we operate in.
    - derefr 11y ago
      Is there a federal debtors' prison I'm unaware of? A fine from the government (when e.g. the sentence for a crime is a fine)—which you don't pay—turns into credit-score damage, liens and garnished wages; it does not turn into reduced freedom of movement/association.
      - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
        You can't be imprisoned for being unable to pay a fine, but you can be imprisoned for being unwilling to pay a fine. This goes back to Bearden v. Georgia in which the SCOTUS ruled >If the probationer has willfully refused to pay the fine or restitution when he has the resources to pay or has failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to seek employment or borrow money to pay, the State is justified in using imprisonment as a sanction to enforce collection. [0] So yes, had Levinson refused to pay the fines imposed he could have been facing a prison sentence. You can easily find a plethora of news stories about people being imprisoned for failure to pay fines. [0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/660.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/660.html

by nbadg 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Lavabit was ordered to provide the SSL key in machine readable format by noon, August 5 or face a fine of $5000 per day. A phone call which from the IRS is defiantly backed up by people with guns even if nobody is directly in your face about it. Suggesting people in Black suits need to show up when I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. http://www.dailydot.com/news/email-anonymous-hushmail-lavabit-nsa/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/email-anonymous-hushmail-lavabi... PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit The service suspended its operations on August 8, 2013 after US government ordered it to turn over its Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) private keys. Levison also stated he has even been banned from sharing some information with his lawyer. Levison and his lawyer made two requests to Judge Claude M. Hilton to unseal the records, both of which were denied.

nbadg 11y ago
> Suggesting people in Black suits need to show up when But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I was responding to: > What would you do if someone held a gun to your head and ordered you to either give them a backdoor, go to jail, or be shot? Which is not reality. That's not the kind of coercion you experience. The government applied (in this case direct) economic pressure, and Lavabit made a business decision that a fine of $5000 per day (and potential future legal problems) was an unacceptable operating expense. Goodbye, Lavabit. And once again, a protocol (like SMTP) that doesn't inherently protect agency is, in my opinion, a technical problem. That email requires SSL for confidentiality is a security vulnerability. You don't fix that by taking on the political system (I mean you could, but good luck). You fix it by engineering a protocol that isn't vulnerable in the first place. My point is that we need to stop waiting for the politics to change, and solve the problem ourselves. That's going to mean questioning some very entrenched protocols, like SMTP. So be it.
- nickff 11y ago
  When you say he faced "potential legal problems", what you really mean is that they were threatening to send him to jail, or if he failed to cooperate with the brave boys in blue, they would shoot him. Fines are enforced in essentially the same way: either pay, go to the small box, or die. It is unpleasant to describe things this way, but using euphemisms to assuage our consciences does not change the reality of the system we operate in.
  - derefr 11y ago
    Is there a federal debtors' prison I'm unaware of? A fine from the government (when e.g. the sentence for a crime is a fine)—which you don't pay—turns into credit-score damage, liens and garnished wages; it does not turn into reduced freedom of movement/association.
    - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
      You can't be imprisoned for being unable to pay a fine, but you can be imprisoned for being unwilling to pay a fine. This goes back to Bearden v. Georgia in which the SCOTUS ruled >If the probationer has willfully refused to pay the fine or restitution when he has the resources to pay or has failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to seek employment or borrow money to pay, the State is justified in using imprisonment as a sanction to enforce collection. [0] So yes, had Levinson refused to pay the fines imposed he could have been facing a prison sentence. You can easily find a plethora of news stories about people being imprisoned for failure to pay fines. [0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/660.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/461/660.html