4 ms·
> He was served with an NSL requiring him to nefariously gather the private encrypted emails of his users. Should really be: He was served with an NSL requiri
by grkvlt 11y ago
> He was served with an NSL requiring him to nefariously gather the private encrypted emails of his users.
Should really be:
He was served with an NSL requiring him to gather the private encrypted emails of one of his users.
Rather less inflammatory, and more accurate - the NSL really only affected the person (actually, it may have been slightly more - two people?) using the service that was being targeted. The reason the service was shut down was because of the precendent; the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal.
- 2g67vupsoknn 11y ago> the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal. Actually, this is exactly what was requested (and was eventually provided). http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/ http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/
- grkvlt 11y agoFrom your cite: > "earlier orders intended to monitor a particular Lavabit user’s metadata." > "the documents indicate the bureau was still trying only to capture metadata on one user." > "while the metadata stream would be captured by a device, the device does not download, does not store, no one looks at it, [and] at the back end of the filter, we get what we’re required to get under the order." > "So there’s no agents looking through the 400,000 other bits of information, customers, whatever, [...] No one looks at that, no one stores it, no one has access to it." So, they were still only looking for (and recording) metadata on one user...