3 ms·

I have a counter-current question (and I feel that this should be a legitimate site for asking such questions, because we are all hackers here). Were lavabit,

by kghose 13y ago

I have a counter-current question (and I feel that this should be a legitimate site for asking such questions, because we are all hackers here). Were lavabit, groklaw profitable and/or widely popular? Is it possible that these are sites that are not profitable and would have been shutdown anyway but which are now using privacy as an excuse for shutting down? This does not excuse the misuse of governmental powers, but if it is true, it is a distraction (and a cynical manipulation of our views).

swayvil 13y ago
iirc the lavabit guy was making 100k a year.
basseq 13y ago
Or, put another way, there were likely a confluence of factors that led to security/surveillance (ostensibly) being the "straw that broke the camel's back"—the latest development that took the risk/reward level over the owner's threshold. How close they were to that threshold anyway, what other factors were in play, whether the perceived threat was evaluated realistically, and other questions are reasonable to ask. I hadn't heard of Lavabit before they shuttered themselves. I had visited Grokalaw on several occasions (often via HN), but have no idea of its profitability or alignment with its authors goals.
makomk 13y ago
Groklaw was widely popular a few years ago; this is the most attention they've got in years. Since they've basically never covered anything secret in their entire existence, and PJ has apparently done ethically questionable things in the past to keep attention on herself, pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious about this. (For example, she supposedly shadowbanned not just commenters who disagreed with her, but supporters who were becoming popular and effective enough to compete with her, along with anyone who mentioned this.)
- thoughtsimple 13y ago
  While I'm not a fan of the recent direction of Groklaw (probably irrelevant now), I think it is a stretch to claim that PJ has done ethically questionable things without some citations. What things?

by kghose 13y ago

swayvil 13y ago

iirc the lavabit guy was making 100k a year.

basseq 13y ago

Or, put another way, there were likely a confluence of factors that led to security/surveillance (ostensibly) being the "straw that broke the camel's back"—the latest development that took the risk/reward level over the owner's threshold. How close they were to that threshold anyway, what other factors were in play, whether the perceived threat was evaluated realistically, and other questions are reasonable to ask. I hadn't heard of Lavabit before they shuttered themselves. I had visited Grokalaw on several occasions (often via HN), but have no idea of its profitability or alignment with its authors goals.

makomk 13y ago

Groklaw was widely popular a few years ago; this is the most attention they've got in years. Since they've basically never covered anything secret in their entire existence, and PJ has apparently done ethically questionable things in the past to keep attention on herself, pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious about this. (For example, she supposedly shadowbanned not just commenters who disagreed with her, but supporters who were becoming popular and effective enough to compete with her, along with anyone who mentioned this.)

thoughtsimple 13y ago
While I'm not a fan of the recent direction of Groklaw (probably irrelevant now), I think it is a stretch to claim that PJ has done ethically questionable things without some citations. What things?