4 ms·

Except that per the article they already had that code written so they couldn't credibly claim that they weren't able to do it: "The representative of Lavabit i

by jauer 13y ago

Except that per the article they already had that code written so they couldn't credibly claim that they weren't able to do it: "The representative of Lavabit indicated that Lavabit had the technical capability to decrypt the information, but that Lavabit did not want to 'defeat [its] own system,'" the government complained.

Glyptodon 13y ago
"Technical ability" means that yes, it's doable if someone does work. It's doesn't mean that they 'already had the ability' other than in a theoretical sense. And even so, it still doesn't change the fact that it would have turned all their business claims into giant lies, possibly even exposing them to suits for false advertising, etc.
- kartikkumar 13y ago
  I think you're reading the sentence incorrectly. The way I read it, it's not saying that they "technically had the ability", which is what you're suggesting as having the ability in a theoretical sense. It's stating that they "had the technical ability", i.e., they had the technical prowess, knowledge, etc.
- betterunix 13y ago
  ""Technical ability" means that yes, it's doable if someone does work. It's doesn't mean that they 'already had the ability' other than in a theoretical sense." That is a meaningless distinction. It is the difference between having to type a large number of characters (not even that large -- how hard is it to capture a password?), or a small number of characters. Lavabit, as designed, could access any user's email the moment that user logged in. That is obvious to anyone who understands what encryption is. It is an inherent vulnerability in every system that does what Lavabit/Hushmail/etc. do. "And even so, it still doesn't change the fact that it would have turned all their business claims into giant lies, possibly even exposing them to suits for false advertising, etc." If Lavabit advertised itself as an email service that cannot read your email, then that suit could have happened regardless, because the claim is untrue. If, on the other hand, it was advertised as a service that will not read your email and that protects your email while it is stored, that is different and would not have been affected by their cooperation with the FBI's demands.

by jauer 13y ago

Glyptodon 13y ago

"Technical ability" means that yes, it's doable if someone does work. It's doesn't mean that they 'already had the ability' other than in a theoretical sense. And even so, it still doesn't change the fact that it would have turned all their business claims into giant lies, possibly even exposing them to suits for false advertising, etc.

kartikkumar 13y ago
I think you're reading the sentence incorrectly. The way I read it, it's not saying that they "technically had the ability", which is what you're suggesting as having the ability in a theoretical sense. It's stating that they "had the technical ability", i.e., they had the technical prowess, knowledge, etc.
betterunix 13y ago
""Technical ability" means that yes, it's doable if someone does work. It's doesn't mean that they 'already had the ability' other than in a theoretical sense." That is a meaningless distinction. It is the difference between having to type a large number of characters (not even that large -- how hard is it to capture a password?), or a small number of characters. Lavabit, as designed, could access any user's email the moment that user logged in. That is obvious to anyone who understands what encryption is. It is an inherent vulnerability in every system that does what Lavabit/Hushmail/etc. do. "And even so, it still doesn't change the fact that it would have turned all their business claims into giant lies, possibly even exposing them to suits for false advertising, etc." If Lavabit advertised itself as an email service that cannot read your email, then that suit could have happened regardless, because the claim is untrue. If, on the other hand, it was advertised as a service that will not read your email and that protects your email while it is stored, that is different and would not have been affected by their cooperation with the FBI's demands.