5 ms·

> I have to suspect that's because he was willing to shut down his company and make a big stink Why so many are stuck on the fact he "shut down the company" an

> I have to suspect that's because he was willing to shut down his company and make a big stink Why so many are stuck on the fact he "shut down the company" and did a good dead. I been downvoted about this before and its fine, I just didnt get my answer. The Feds did not ask him to shut down; it wasnt Government mission. Their mission was to get access to Lavabit data. Said that, regardless if he shut down or not, Government will or already did get full access to Lavabit data. Its even worse that they shut down; if they were online you could go and clean up your mailbox (not necessarily from anything illegal, but for example your own naked pictures you sent to your wife). But since they are offline, nothing can be done. Government won.

anologwintermut 13y ago
Lavabit claims they encrypted email on receipt and only decrypted when you logged in and gave them a password they could unlock the encryption key with. If the feds required lavabit to retain the clear text copies of received mail longer than they did for AV/Spam filtering, shutting down the service solves this. Similarly, it prevents anyone from getting the decrypted copies when someone accesses the server. On the other hand, if Lavabit merely got a warrant of Edward Snowden's email, shutting down the service and claiming they can't talk about it is just a publicity stunt since secret or not, it's pretty clear the government has a legally valid reason for that warrant.
stefap2 13y ago
Not just past, but also future data: "He likened the demands to a requirement to install a tap on his telephone. "
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Shutting down the company alerted users to possible surveillance. Government wanted to snoop in secret. Now their secret is out, and they may or may not get to snoop on their target(s) via other channels. Levison loses the proceeds of his business, but he has behaved ethically by discontinuing his service since he can no longer deliver what was promised. Levison took the closest thing he could get to a win. Levison gets extra karma because he put everyone's interests ahead of his own short-term financial interests. By shutting his business in the manner that he did, he has poisoned the well for gov't snooping at other similar services. If he is lucky, he may suffer little or no further gov't retribution.

anologwintermut 13y ago

Lavabit claims they encrypted email on receipt and only decrypted when you logged in and gave them a password they could unlock the encryption key with. If the feds required lavabit to retain the clear text copies of received mail longer than they did for AV/Spam filtering, shutting down the service solves this. Similarly, it prevents anyone from getting the decrypted copies when someone accesses the server. On the other hand, if Lavabit merely got a warrant of Edward Snowden's email, shutting down the service and claiming they can't talk about it is just a publicity stunt since secret or not, it's pretty clear the government has a legally valid reason for that warrant.

stefap2 13y ago

Not just past, but also future data: "He likened the demands to a requirement to install a tap on his telephone. "

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Shutting down the company alerted users to possible surveillance. Government wanted to snoop in secret. Now their secret is out, and they may or may not get to snoop on their target(s) via other channels. Levison loses the proceeds of his business, but he has behaved ethically by discontinuing his service since he can no longer deliver what was promised. Levison took the closest thing he could get to a win. Levison gets extra karma because he put everyone's interests ahead of his own short-term financial interests. By shutting his business in the manner that he did, he has poisoned the well for gov't snooping at other similar services. If he is lucky, he may suffer little or no further gov't retribution.