4 ms·

> the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal. Actually, this is exactly what was requested

• grkvlt 11y ago
  From 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...