10 ms·

1. The link doesn't work. 2. As a non-Lavabit user, who are they and why should I give them money?

by mjolk 13y ago

josephpmay 13y ago
They are(were) a fully-encrypted email provider that had no ability to monitor your emails. Edward Snowden hosted his account there, and they had to shut down because of (probably) US government intervention.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  it starts to sound like providing fully encrypted solution (where provider just isn't able to cooperate because of no access to plain text) makes the provider de-facto accessory to whatever crime may be committed by perpetrators who used the solution while committing the crime. Basically fully encrypted solution (incl. without government backdoor) moves into the same category as assault gun, ie. something that regular good citizens supposedly just don't have legitimate uses for.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I'm not sure I catch your drift. I don't see how being an accessory enters the equation at all (how can you be held responsible for providing information you simply do not have?), and there are no current laws concerning "assault guns".
    - unreal37 13y ago
      I get the reasoning. If you provide the ability to communicate securely without a government backdoor, the government will treat you like you assist terrorists. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, Sept 20 2001
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        That ship has sailed though, unless they really feel like harassing Phil Zimmermann again...
- mieses 13y ago
  If a gmail user sends a plain text email to a lavabit user or vice versa, do they consider that scenario to be "fully encrypted". Or do both recipient and sender have to be lavabit users?
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    they perform(ed) encryption of your inbox using your account password, which they (obviously) don't store. Thus, everything you save to their servers is encrypted by them on your behalf, and they can't decrypt it without you. if you email a gmail account, or a gmail account emails you, obviously a copy will end up on both, at least temporarily. I don't see what more they could do, as a provider - all your metadata and emails encrypted properly for you, shut down completely when (the NSA?) comes knocking.
sp332 13y ago
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6181081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6181081
plainOldText 13y ago
This is who they are/were: About: http://web.archive.org/web/20130429153529/http://lavabit.com/history.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130429153529/http://lavabit.com... Philosophy: http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130816/http://lavabit.com/philosophy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130816/http://lavabit.com... Privacy: http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130804/http://lavabit.com/privacy_policy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130804/http://lavabit.com...

1. The link doesn't work. 2. As a non-Lavabit user, who are they and why should I give them money?

by mjolk 13y ago

1. The link doesn't work. 2. As a non-Lavabit user, who are they and why should I give them money?

They are(were) a fully-encrypted email provider that had no ability to monitor your emails. Edward Snowden hosted his account there, and they had to shut down because of (probably) US government intervention.

VladRussian2 13y ago
it starts to sound like providing fully encrypted solution (where provider just isn't able to cooperate because of no access to plain text) makes the provider de-facto accessory to whatever crime may be committed by perpetrators who used the solution while committing the crime. Basically fully encrypted solution (incl. without government backdoor) moves into the same category as assault gun, ie. something that regular good citizens supposedly just don't have legitimate uses for.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I'm not sure I catch your drift. I don't see how being an accessory enters the equation at all (how can you be held responsible for providing information you simply do not have?), and there are no current laws concerning "assault guns".
  - unreal37 13y ago
    I get the reasoning. If you provide the ability to communicate securely without a government backdoor, the government will treat you like you assist terrorists. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, Sept 20 2001
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      That ship has sailed though, unless they really feel like harassing Phil Zimmermann again...
mieses 13y ago
If a gmail user sends a plain text email to a lavabit user or vice versa, do they consider that scenario to be "fully encrypted". Or do both recipient and sender have to be lavabit users?
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  they perform(ed) encryption of your inbox using your account password, which they (obviously) don't store. Thus, everything you save to their servers is encrypted by them on your behalf, and they can't decrypt it without you. if you email a gmail account, or a gmail account emails you, obviously a copy will end up on both, at least temporarily. I don't see what more they could do, as a provider - all your metadata and emails encrypted properly for you, shut down completely when (the NSA?) comes knocking.

sp332 13y ago

More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6181081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6181081

plainOldText 13y ago

This is who they are/were: About: http://web.archive.org/web/20130429153529/http://lavabit.com/history.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130429153529/http://lavabit.com... Philosophy: http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130816/http://lavabit.com/philosophy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130816/http://lavabit.com... Privacy: http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130804/http://lavabit.com/privacy_policy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130804/http://lavabit.com...