4 ms·

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no W

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_... "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Clearly this is a violation of the 4th Amendment as such a key would give them the ability to conduct unfettered and "unparticular" searches. A more targeted, and constitutionally legal, approach would have been to order lavabit to use, but not disclose, the private key to decrypt specific emails from specific people. Given that the police know the public key, they could verify that lavabit had supplied correct decryptions.

Karunamon 13y ago
Hmm.. the FBI had probable cause to believe Snowden's email contained incriminating data. Furthermore, targeted pen registers/trace orders aren't exactly unconstitutional, but combine the way Lavabit is architected with the scope of the search, and you've essentially given them the keys to the kingdom. Are there any older physical parallels to this? What happens if the police, in the process of securing a lawful warrant, require access to a physical master key or combination or etc. which would open a great deal more than access to the suspect's belongings?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pyre 13y ago
  Presumably, the holder of the master key uses it to unlock <storage_medium> and doesn't hand it over to the police?
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  It appears that the FBI's original request was narrowly targeted to Snowden and completely above board, warrant and all. It didn't give them the keys to the Kingdom. When lavabit refused to comply,the FBI got more aggressive. Which seems like exactly what would happen. Think about it. What if the FBI subpoenaed financial records from a Bank who refuses to open the safe they were in. Well, the US Marshals are going to show up at the bank with a court order,break open the vault, and get access to all the records and take the one they want. It's not an unreasonable search provided there are checks that they only get the one record they are looking. In fact, arguably the Bank breached it's duty to it's customers by forcing the US Marshals to go through all their records rather than the Bank doing it self. Obviously, it's not so clear in this case since Lavabit apparently finally did offer to hand over some data, but it is along those lines.

Karunamon 13y ago

Hmm.. the FBI had probable cause to believe Snowden's email contained incriminating data. Furthermore, targeted pen registers/trace orders aren't exactly unconstitutional, but combine the way Lavabit is architected with the scope of the search, and you've essentially given them the keys to the kingdom. Are there any older physical parallels to this? What happens if the police, in the process of securing a lawful warrant, require access to a physical master key or combination or etc. which would open a great deal more than access to the suspect's belongings?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pyre 13y ago
Presumably, the holder of the master key uses it to unlock <storage_medium> and doesn't hand it over to the police?
anologwintermut 13y ago
It appears that the FBI's original request was narrowly targeted to Snowden and completely above board, warrant and all. It didn't give them the keys to the Kingdom. When lavabit refused to comply,the FBI got more aggressive. Which seems like exactly what would happen. Think about it. What if the FBI subpoenaed financial records from a Bank who refuses to open the safe they were in. Well, the US Marshals are going to show up at the bank with a court order,break open the vault, and get access to all the records and take the one they want. It's not an unreasonable search provided there are checks that they only get the one record they are looking. In fact, arguably the Bank breached it's duty to it's customers by forcing the US Marshals to go through all their records rather than the Bank doing it self. Obviously, it's not so clear in this case since Lavabit apparently finally did offer to hand over some data, but it is along those lines.