5 ms·

Why would the government believe a claim that Lavabit could not provide them with plaintexts? Hushmail did it, and Lavabit's architecture is not all that diffe

Why would the government believe a claim that Lavabit could not provide them with plaintexts? Hushmail did it, and Lavabit's architecture is not all that different. At best Lavabit could claim that the user had not logged in and thus they were unable to capture the user's password.

bradleyjg 13y ago
Hushmail is in Canada, I have no idea what the rules surrounding cooperating with the government are there. In the US when it comes to subpoenas from civil or criminal courts, you only need to produce "books, papers, documents, data, or other objects" in your possession. The passwords were not in Lavabit's possession at the time it received the subpoena. Furthermore, subpoenas can be quashed if they are " unreasonable or oppressive" (see e.g. FRCrimP 17c). Asking a witness to write custom code in order to capture a user's password is a textbook example of an unreasonable request. The rules for national security requests on the other hand are entirely different. 50 USC 1805(c)(2) requires the recipient of an electronic surveillance order to: "(B) that, upon the request of the applicant, a specified communication or other common carrier, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, or in circumstances where the Court finds, based upon specific facts provided in the application, that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons, furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing that target of electronic surveillance;"
- krichman 13y ago
  What the fuck, NSLs have taken down the first and fourth amendments and are turning towards the third.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
Dylan16807 13y ago
No, at best they could say they don't have a system to capture people's passwords, and never betray their users by making one.

bradleyjg 13y ago

Hushmail is in Canada, I have no idea what the rules surrounding cooperating with the government are there. In the US when it comes to subpoenas from civil or criminal courts, you only need to produce "books, papers, documents, data, or other objects" in your possession. The passwords were not in Lavabit's possession at the time it received the subpoena. Furthermore, subpoenas can be quashed if they are " unreasonable or oppressive" (see e.g. FRCrimP 17c). Asking a witness to write custom code in order to capture a user's password is a textbook example of an unreasonable request. The rules for national security requests on the other hand are entirely different. 50 USC 1805(c)(2) requires the recipient of an electronic surveillance order to: "(B) that, upon the request of the applicant, a specified communication or other common carrier, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, or in circumstances where the Court finds, based upon specific facts provided in the application, that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons, furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing that target of electronic surveillance;"

krichman 13y ago
What the fuck, NSLs have taken down the first and fourth amendments and are turning towards the third.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Dylan16807 13y ago

No, at best they could say they don't have a system to capture people's passwords, and never betray their users by making one.