3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWhen 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 agoIs 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 agoYou 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