3 ms·

For a few years he has claimed that the US had a sealed indictment on him in secret it was left unproven until recently when part of it was revealed and then it

For a few years he has claimed that the US had a sealed indictment on him in secret it was left unproven until recently when part of it was revealed and then it was confirmed. There's also the case of ladar levison getting a national security letter when his business was FBI'ed for hosting encrypted snowden emails. That letter meant he could not even tell his wife what was happening, including going to court and being generally railroaded by the legal system. His defcon talks on the legal lies he experienced in court are amusing. Being accuses of running from police put the backdoor of 5 story apartment building with no exit for the sake of speeding up proceedings along with his lawyer being bismurched for ties he knew nothing about and copy and paste text in the prosecution's legal docs. I mean the US had Guantanamo, secrecy in the US government has been the norm for a while.

iudqnolq 7y ago
Sounds like he thought he could outsmart the legal system and learned courts don't treat you well when you try to pretend the law is a computer program. > Levison reluctantly turned over his encryption keys to the government, although not in a manner that the government deemed useful—he provided a lengthy printout in tiny type, a move the authorities said was objectionable. The company had treated the matter "as if it was a contract negotiation," rather than a "lawful court order,” Assistant US Attorney Andrew Peterson, who represented the government, told the appellate court. Also, hearing someone say they didnt have time to hire a lawyer is a massive red flag. Not having a lawyer, especially if you haven't ever learned about the law, is nearly a guarantee you're about to be screwed. Most judges know this and will give you more time to find a lawyer if you need it (called a continuance). I don't know if he asked, but I suspect if he had and the judge had refused his request he'd have stated that. His case may have had merits, but if this is how he approached the legal system I think his losses can be attributed to him.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  When the other side of the story is Ladar saying he hired a lawyer and the prosecution characterized it as an act of defiance.. then character attacks on both sides lose their value. He turned over the keys on paper because that's all he had access to in the 3 hours he had to provide it. https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=4485 https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=4485 Timestamp for the paper keys. There is way more detail that shows he was put in extremely difficult situations and his ability to respond to quite a few legal mechanisms was severely limited by compressed timeframes and legal actions been done in parallel and out of sight. The whole talk linked goes through a lot of it in detail, if you want to take the Wiki's story do.. but it's not the whole story in any sense of the word. https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=5754 https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=5754 Timestamp for a Q&A question that asks specifically about the paper keys and he goes in to much more detail.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    I'm not going to watch the entire talk. Just listening at the timestamp you provided, I think he confirms my characterization. He states that technically the government never specified how they wanted the keys, so he could hand them over however he wanted even if the format he provided was extremely hard to make use of. This isn't how the law works. Him saying that he thought up some clever trick, and not that his lawyer proposed a clever trick, is also a massive red flag. The document up on the screen in the video says he had 24 hours. That's enough time to type up an encryption key, if the printout was actually readable. Can you provide a cite for hiring a lawyer being characterized as an act of defiance? My assumption, given no further information, is that he didn't hire a normal lawyer in a normal fashion if that happened. Many things are unfair about the US legal system, I have never heard being penalized for having a lawyer being one of them.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      The cite for an act of defiance is in the video I linked. It's not a strict penalty, but an argument from prosecution. If you listen to the talk he had flown to the court with a limited amount of equipment and he addresses the issue of "readability" in the Q&A section I linked. You didn't listen because he says himself he had 3 hours inside court proceedings to provide it. I'm not just going to transcribe a video for you. I've provided the source. I've spent enough time on this.
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        He may have had three hours to provide it from when the judge denied his motion, but people who know what they're doing plan on what they'll do if they lose a motion ahead of time. He states that only lawyers are allowed to bring encrypted devices into federal courthouses. This is false. Likely he refers to the fact that you have to check electronic devices like cellphones at the security desk. Here's what the appeals court had to say about his production of the keys: > Despite the unequivocal language of the August 1 Order, Lavabit dallied and did not comply. Just before the 5:00 pm August 2 deadline, for instance, Levison provided the FBI with an 11-page printout containing largely illegible characters in 4-point type, which he represented to be Lavabit’s encryption keys. The Government instructed Lavabit to provide the keys in an industry-standard electronic format by the morning of August 5. Lavabit did not respond. > The Government sought penalties of $5,000 a day until Lavabit provided the encryption keys to the Government. The district court granted the motion for sanctions that day. Two days later, Levison provided the keys to the Government. By that time, six weeks of data regarding the target had been lost. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/134625.P.pdf http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/134625.P.pdf If you know you might be forced to provide something, and you make it really hard for yourself to get that information in response, judges in the US legal system may well lack sympathy for you. I'm not seeking to make a value judgement about right and wrong here, I'm trying to argue that Levison's issues stemmed from deliberately choosing to do legally dumb things.
tssva 7y ago
An indictment is a charge of commiting a crime. It is the first step towards being out in trial for a crime. No secret trial has occurred in the Assange case. Ladar Levison was not served with a national security letter by the FBI. National security letters can not legally compel either the turning over of encryption keys or installation of a device to intercept communications. In fact it can't compel turning over communications period but only any existing records regarding such communications. Existing being a key word because a NSL also can't compel keeping of additional records beyond what has already been collected by the entity receiving the NSL. Lidar Levison received a wiretap order issued by a federal court. Wiretaps require the FBI to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that a felony has been committed. I can't think of a country in the world that doesn't allow wiretaps and require them to be kept secret. Requiring a judge to issue a wiretap order is in fact more stringent control over wiretaps than exists in most of the world including many European countries where police can implement wiretaps on their own accord.

iudqnolq 7y ago

Sounds like he thought he could outsmart the legal system and learned courts don't treat you well when you try to pretend the law is a computer program. > Levison reluctantly turned over his encryption keys to the government, although not in a manner that the government deemed useful—he provided a lengthy printout in tiny type, a move the authorities said was objectionable. The company had treated the matter "as if it was a contract negotiation," rather than a "lawful court order,” Assistant US Attorney Andrew Peterson, who represented the government, told the appellate court. Also, hearing someone say they didnt have time to hire a lawyer is a massive red flag. Not having a lawyer, especially if you haven't ever learned about the law, is nearly a guarantee you're about to be screwed. Most judges know this and will give you more time to find a lawyer if you need it (called a continuance). I don't know if he asked, but I suspect if he had and the judge had refused his request he'd have stated that. His case may have had merits, but if this is how he approached the legal system I think his losses can be attributed to him.

friendlybus 7y ago
When the other side of the story is Ladar saying he hired a lawyer and the prosecution characterized it as an act of defiance.. then character attacks on both sides lose their value. He turned over the keys on paper because that's all he had access to in the 3 hours he had to provide it. https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=4485 https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=4485 Timestamp for the paper keys. There is way more detail that shows he was put in extremely difficult situations and his ability to respond to quite a few legal mechanisms was severely limited by compressed timeframes and legal actions been done in parallel and out of sight. The whole talk linked goes through a lot of it in detail, if you want to take the Wiki's story do.. but it's not the whole story in any sense of the word. https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=5754 https://youtu.be/g_lN-RAfzRQ?t=5754 Timestamp for a Q&A question that asks specifically about the paper keys and he goes in to much more detail.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I'm not going to watch the entire talk. Just listening at the timestamp you provided, I think he confirms my characterization. He states that technically the government never specified how they wanted the keys, so he could hand them over however he wanted even if the format he provided was extremely hard to make use of. This isn't how the law works. Him saying that he thought up some clever trick, and not that his lawyer proposed a clever trick, is also a massive red flag. The document up on the screen in the video says he had 24 hours. That's enough time to type up an encryption key, if the printout was actually readable. Can you provide a cite for hiring a lawyer being characterized as an act of defiance? My assumption, given no further information, is that he didn't hire a normal lawyer in a normal fashion if that happened. Many things are unfair about the US legal system, I have never heard being penalized for having a lawyer being one of them.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    The cite for an act of defiance is in the video I linked. It's not a strict penalty, but an argument from prosecution. If you listen to the talk he had flown to the court with a limited amount of equipment and he addresses the issue of "readability" in the Q&A section I linked. You didn't listen because he says himself he had 3 hours inside court proceedings to provide it. I'm not just going to transcribe a video for you. I've provided the source. I've spent enough time on this.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      He may have had three hours to provide it from when the judge denied his motion, but people who know what they're doing plan on what they'll do if they lose a motion ahead of time. He states that only lawyers are allowed to bring encrypted devices into federal courthouses. This is false. Likely he refers to the fact that you have to check electronic devices like cellphones at the security desk. Here's what the appeals court had to say about his production of the keys: > Despite the unequivocal language of the August 1 Order, Lavabit dallied and did not comply. Just before the 5:00 pm August 2 deadline, for instance, Levison provided the FBI with an 11-page printout containing largely illegible characters in 4-point type, which he represented to be Lavabit’s encryption keys. The Government instructed Lavabit to provide the keys in an industry-standard electronic format by the morning of August 5. Lavabit did not respond. > The Government sought penalties of $5,000 a day until Lavabit provided the encryption keys to the Government. The district court granted the motion for sanctions that day. Two days later, Levison provided the keys to the Government. By that time, six weeks of data regarding the target had been lost. http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/134625.P.pdf http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/134625.P.pdf If you know you might be forced to provide something, and you make it really hard for yourself to get that information in response, judges in the US legal system may well lack sympathy for you. I'm not seeking to make a value judgement about right and wrong here, I'm trying to argue that Levison's issues stemmed from deliberately choosing to do legally dumb things.

tssva 7y ago

An indictment is a charge of commiting a crime. It is the first step towards being out in trial for a crime. No secret trial has occurred in the Assange case. Ladar Levison was not served with a national security letter by the FBI. National security letters can not legally compel either the turning over of encryption keys or installation of a device to intercept communications. In fact it can't compel turning over communications period but only any existing records regarding such communications. Existing being a key word because a NSL also can't compel keeping of additional records beyond what has already been collected by the entity receiving the NSL. Lidar Levison received a wiretap order issued by a federal court. Wiretaps require the FBI to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that a felony has been committed. I can't think of a country in the world that doesn't allow wiretaps and require them to be kept secret. Requiring a judge to issue a wiretap order is in fact more stringent control over wiretaps than exists in most of the world including many European countries where police can implement wiretaps on their own accord.