8 ms·

Jump to conclusions often? The MUCH simpler, obviously far more likely sequence of events, is: 1) June 28th: FBI/DoJ obtains lawful court order for a pen regi

Jump to conclusions often? The MUCH simpler, obviously far more likely sequence of events, is: 1) June 28th: FBI/DoJ obtains lawful court order for a pen register trace on Snowden's email account. 2) June 28th-July 9th: Lavabit fails to comply. 3) July 9th: Lavabit held in contempt, which is clearly appropriate as they did not respond to a lawful court order. 4) July 9 - August 1: FBI obtains search warrant for Snowden's email. Lavabit challenges warrant on the irrelevant technical grounds that they encrypt all users' email with same key. 5) August 8: Lavabit shuts down, because it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative. You can't wave off court orders just because you think the Internet is some kind of libertarian cyber-paradise where mortal laws do not apply. Court orders and search warrants are lawful means of investigation. Lavabit's business was not compatible with US laws or probably the laws of any country more developed than Zimbabwe.

Numberwang 13y ago
Would have been great with a bit more transparency on the chain of events. Most countries more developed than Zimbabwe would have provided that as a service to its citizens.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  You mean by unsealing the court records, such as the unsealed court records which form the basis of this article?
  - Numberwang 13y ago
    Why would court records be sealed at all, and why would there be any speculation about the chain of events if you were given the very basic information about a case? Throwaway accounts usually mean throwaway opinions. Do something more important with your life.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Warrants in cases under investigation are often sealed because if they weren't the targets would be immediately alerted by services like Lexis/Nexis that their names have popped up in a court record. (I will remember for the future that "throwaway" users have invalid opinions but "numberwang" is a source of erudition and, apparently, productivity.)
      - generj 13y ago
        Oh come on, it's clearly a reference to a rather funny joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDu5D_IXbc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDu5D_IXbc That said, I agree that throwaway users can have very valid opinions, and furthermore agree that warrants are frequently sealed. I do have a concern of perpetually sealed warrants, and worry that in this case the government would have preferred to seal the case forever. Also, the seal should never have prevented Lavabit from talking to Congressmen about general concerns regarding forced SSL key delivery. The documents make it clear the judge considered even mentioning the possibility of this occurrence would be a violation of the seal. This is absurd, because being forced to give up an SSL key for a popular service is unprecedented, and he absolutely should have been able to discretely contact his representatives.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Real throwaway accounts usually are not active for 544 days with karma levels of 1100.
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
>> You can't wave off court orders just because you think ... Some people like to operate by the motto, "Do no evil". So yes, he can wave off a court order. And millions of informed people will have his back.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  If by "millions of informed people" you meant "dozens of uninformed people" then we agree. What is evil about a court-ordered pen register?
  - beedogs 13y ago
    You really should hurry up and throw this account away. All it does is crap-post.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  Well, yeah, he can do whatever he wants. He coulda put out a hit on the agents investigating him and significantly delayed the proceedings. In terms of free will, possible. In terms of practicality, a really bad idea. And sure, millions of people could have his back, but unfortunately those aren't the people with the guns or militaries, they're the people who tend to stay home posting comments on the internet.
  - ChrisAntaki 13y ago
    >> He coulda put out a hit on the agents investigating him and significantly delayed the proceedings. That's terrible, I can't believe you would suggest that. >> And sure, millions of people could have his back You are sounding pretty out there. Not many people would support your violent suggestion.
    - obstacle1 13y ago
      >That's terrible, I can't believe you would suggest that. Yeah, FSM forbid we actually think arguments through to their logical conclusions. How dare I! I am pointing out the absurdity and irrelevance of your argument with respect to the discussion at hand. You offered the laser-sharp insight that hey, people can ignore the rule of law, so don't say they can't! It's a semantic distinction and I am taking it to the extreme where while it is still valid, it is ridiculous. Anyone can put out a hit on Federal agents, there are no physical laws to prevent one from doing so. However anyone who values continued survival within civilized society functionally cannot. I'm not sure if you're being dense as a rhetorical device or what, but I can't believe I'm having to spell this out. On HN of all places. I'd expect this level of discourse from /r/eli5 or similar, not here.
Lagged2Death 13y ago
You can't wave off court orders just because you think the Internet is some kind of libertarian cyber-paradise where mortal laws do not apply. The story we've heard so far is that Lavabit had routinely complied with warrants and cooperated with targeted investigations against specific individuals. There are court records documenting at least some of these cases. The details given here are beyond sketchy. Your characterization is hyperbolic and as far as I can see, unwarranted.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  > The filings show that Lavabit was served on June 28 with a so-called “pen register” order requiring it to record, and provide the government with, the connection information on one of its users every time that user logged in to check his e-mail. How is that different than previous warrants? How is that sketchy?
  - Lagged2Death 13y ago
    I don't know. Maybe if we knew all the details of this case and the previous cases, we could say. Maybe it has something to do with the architecture of the service. Maybe Levison felt that turning Lavabit into a real-time tracking device crossed a line he hadn't crossed before. I just don't think it's right to call Levison rude names and all but convict him on these vague reports.
    - anologwintermut 13y ago
      On the other hand, it seems like a poor idea to say he is a hero. It certainly seems like he decided that in this case of a legitimate court order(Snowden, right wrong or otherwise, did break a bunch of US laws) he wasn't going to comply --- though by his own admission he could comply for just one account --- and is using the fact that there is a gag order to in fact make his actions seem nobler than they were.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > It certainly seems like he decided that in this case of a legitimate court order(Snowden, right wrong or otherwise, did break a bunch of US laws) he wasn't going to comply --- though by his own admission he could comply for just one account Why do you think that makes it a bad idea to call him a hero? Far from being a reason not to appreciate him, it seems to me that what you describe is the very action that people are describing as heroic.
jnbiche 13y ago
For the record, Lavabit routinely complied with search warrants, including one just months before this incident [1]. So what was different about this one? 1. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Maryland_District_Court/1--13-mj-00607/In_the_Matter_of_the_Search_of--_Lavabit_LLC_Email_Account_for_Joey006%40lavabit.com/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Maryland_District_Court/1-...
- RexRollman 13y ago
  It would have enabled to government to listen in to everyone using the service, not just get the information of the intended target.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Is that true? As I understood it, the original request was for pen/trap on Snowden alone; when that was refused and Levison threatened with contempt, he relented, only to be rebuked by DOJ with a new demand for blanket surveillance. But as I understand it, Levison could have complied with the earlier demand for surveillance narrowly targeting Snowden.
    - acqq 13y ago
      Yes it is true, it would have enabled FBI to listen in to everyone using the service. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487778
    - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
      Your understanding is not accurate from my read of the court docs. They wanted their black box (you know the ones), called a pen/trap device in the documents, to be installed on the network. It won't work without the SSL keys, so they wanted those. He offered to modify his software to intercept a single user's email, but they said no.
- acqq 13y ago
  The difference is that FBI this time wanted to install their own equipment inside of his facilities (at the point where everything of every user is decrypted): http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801182/redacted-pleadings-exhibits-1-23.pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801182/redacted-pleadi... "shall furnish agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, forthwith , all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the installation and use of the pen/trap device." Before, they would really demand only the information of the user named in the court order. This time it was "just let us install this thing inside and don't ask."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lucajona 13y ago
>> You can't wave off court orders just because you think the Internet is some kind of libertarian cyber-paradise where mortal laws do not apply “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Are you saying that the Pen Register Act is on par, morally, with Jim Crow?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    References to prior controversies should not be interpreted as implying a moral equivalence with current controversies.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    When it's used to attack whistleblowers, yes.
  - noonespecial 13y ago
    That quote would have read “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws so long as those laws are of equal or greater unjustness than Jim Crow.”
  - bigB 13y ago
    In essence yes at least in the context of this case, as it is essentially segregating those who wish to expose the illegal activity of the government, and those that wish to turn a blind eye. Remember, the NSA lied to congress, which is not only illegal but immoral in itself. Think about it, you get to sleep in your bed tonight, Snowden who knows where ?
- lucajona 13y ago
  >> Are you saying that the Pen Register Act is on par, morally, with Jim Crow? No.
arca_vorago 13y ago
"Lavabit shuts down, because it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative." Perfectly summing up your bias on the matter.
VexXtreme 13y ago
You sound awfully authoritarian. Just because its lawful doesn't mean it's morally right and that it should be blindly followed no questions asked. In Nazi Germany it was lawful and mandatory to report on Jews, communists and minorities and the inability to do so or aiding them in any way would often end in the death of the person involved. You can't throw out common sense and basic decency just because something is "the law".
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  So you're saying that complying with a pen register order in a federal case is the same as reporting jews to the ss? I ask because there's another guy in this thread who equated pen registers with anti-interracial marriage laws. You guys should get together.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I see no suggestion of equivalency in either post, unless you think such examples represent the lower-bound of how out of line the law must be before you can reject it. Surely you don't think that... These examples establish that there is a limit to blindly pinning morality and the law. These examples to not make statements about where that limit is, nor do these examples serve to equate any of the governments' actions.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Both of the posts indirectly imply that complying with this specific pen register order would have been evil on the hitler/mlkjr scale, because they are both made in the context of this article. It would be pointless to say "One must not comply with evil laws, but this law isn't evil, so cool, nevermind what I was saying about evil." A comment that implies this specific court order was evil, or even moderately wrong, needs to be accompanied by supporting rhetoric about _why_ it was wrong, some indictment of our system of due process. Without such supporting arguments the comments are just disposable invocations of Godwin.
      - 13y ago
mcantelon 13y ago
The resistance to the initial request was likely because it targeted a whistleblower attempting to expose the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance, not a member of the "criminal class" (nice framing attempt). It was a courageous act of civil disobedience.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  alleged whistleblower At the time when Lavabit defied the initial court order, had Snowden been classified as a legitimate whistleblower (by the people who actually have the authority to make such a decision)?
zik 13y ago
> ...it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative. That's quite an assertion. I had an email account on lavabit. From what you're saying apparently that means I'm a criminal.
- tptacek 13y ago
  That's not the assertion he made.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Technically that does not imply that all customers are criminals. Consider this transformation of your quote: "It turns that a bar serving beer to minors carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative" Now, this doesn't imply that a bar in only serves minors, though it does imply that the bar knowingly served minors (possibly among others). (This said, the quote is obviously a rather inflammatory way to describe their business, and Snowden was plainly not a member of some sort of "criminal class" (whatever that is).)
betterunix 13y ago
"it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative." The criminal class? Do you really think that only criminals want private email? I have shocking news for you: some of us use email encryption to protect ourselves from the criminal class. "Lavabit's business was not compatible with US laws" Actually it was entirely compatible with US laws. There is nothing illegal about encryption of any kind in this country. The hacker and cypherpunks communities fought throughout the 80s and 90s for the public's right to use strong encryption without back doors, and we, the people, came out winners.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  This wasn't strong encryption and had no privacy features whatsoever. Lavabit had the ability to track its users and decrypt their mail.
fetbaffe 13y ago
"because it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative." I guess that’s the reason the Post Office is doing so bad. I have an idea, why not tell the Post Office so send all letters via the FBI so we can check who sent them and to whom.

Numberwang 13y ago

Would have been great with a bit more transparency on the chain of events. Most countries more developed than Zimbabwe would have provided that as a service to its citizens.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
You mean by unsealing the court records, such as the unsealed court records which form the basis of this article?
- Numberwang 13y ago
  Why would court records be sealed at all, and why would there be any speculation about the chain of events if you were given the very basic information about a case? Throwaway accounts usually mean throwaway opinions. Do something more important with your life.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Warrants in cases under investigation are often sealed because if they weren't the targets would be immediately alerted by services like Lexis/Nexis that their names have popped up in a court record. (I will remember for the future that "throwaway" users have invalid opinions but "numberwang" is a source of erudition and, apparently, productivity.)
    - generj 13y ago
      Oh come on, it's clearly a reference to a rather funny joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDu5D_IXbc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDu5D_IXbc That said, I agree that throwaway users can have very valid opinions, and furthermore agree that warrants are frequently sealed. I do have a concern of perpetually sealed warrants, and worry that in this case the government would have preferred to seal the case forever. Also, the seal should never have prevented Lavabit from talking to Congressmen about general concerns regarding forced SSL key delivery. The documents make it clear the judge considered even mentioning the possibility of this occurrence would be a violation of the seal. This is absurd, because being forced to give up an SSL key for a popular service is unprecedented, and he absolutely should have been able to discretely contact his representatives.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Real throwaway accounts usually are not active for 544 days with karma levels of 1100.

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

>> You can't wave off court orders just because you think ... Some people like to operate by the motto, "Do no evil". So yes, he can wave off a court order. And millions of informed people will have his back.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
If by "millions of informed people" you meant "dozens of uninformed people" then we agree. What is evil about a court-ordered pen register?
- beedogs 13y ago
  You really should hurry up and throw this account away. All it does is crap-post.
obstacle1 13y ago
Well, yeah, he can do whatever he wants. He coulda put out a hit on the agents investigating him and significantly delayed the proceedings. In terms of free will, possible. In terms of practicality, a really bad idea. And sure, millions of people could have his back, but unfortunately those aren't the people with the guns or militaries, they're the people who tend to stay home posting comments on the internet.
- ChrisAntaki 13y ago
  >> He coulda put out a hit on the agents investigating him and significantly delayed the proceedings. That's terrible, I can't believe you would suggest that. >> And sure, millions of people could have his back You are sounding pretty out there. Not many people would support your violent suggestion.
  - obstacle1 13y ago
    >That's terrible, I can't believe you would suggest that. Yeah, FSM forbid we actually think arguments through to their logical conclusions. How dare I! I am pointing out the absurdity and irrelevance of your argument with respect to the discussion at hand. You offered the laser-sharp insight that hey, people can ignore the rule of law, so don't say they can't! It's a semantic distinction and I am taking it to the extreme where while it is still valid, it is ridiculous. Anyone can put out a hit on Federal agents, there are no physical laws to prevent one from doing so. However anyone who values continued survival within civilized society functionally cannot. I'm not sure if you're being dense as a rhetorical device or what, but I can't believe I'm having to spell this out. On HN of all places. I'd expect this level of discourse from /r/eli5 or similar, not here.

Lagged2Death 13y ago

You can't wave off court orders just because you think the Internet is some kind of libertarian cyber-paradise where mortal laws do not apply. The story we've heard so far is that Lavabit had routinely complied with warrants and cooperated with targeted investigations against specific individuals. There are court records documenting at least some of these cases. The details given here are beyond sketchy. Your characterization is hyperbolic and as far as I can see, unwarranted.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
> The filings show that Lavabit was served on June 28 with a so-called “pen register” order requiring it to record, and provide the government with, the connection information on one of its users every time that user logged in to check his e-mail. How is that different than previous warrants? How is that sketchy?
- Lagged2Death 13y ago
  I don't know. Maybe if we knew all the details of this case and the previous cases, we could say. Maybe it has something to do with the architecture of the service. Maybe Levison felt that turning Lavabit into a real-time tracking device crossed a line he hadn't crossed before. I just don't think it's right to call Levison rude names and all but convict him on these vague reports.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    On the other hand, it seems like a poor idea to say he is a hero. It certainly seems like he decided that in this case of a legitimate court order(Snowden, right wrong or otherwise, did break a bunch of US laws) he wasn't going to comply --- though by his own admission he could comply for just one account --- and is using the fact that there is a gag order to in fact make his actions seem nobler than they were.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > It certainly seems like he decided that in this case of a legitimate court order(Snowden, right wrong or otherwise, did break a bunch of US laws) he wasn't going to comply --- though by his own admission he could comply for just one account Why do you think that makes it a bad idea to call him a hero? Far from being a reason not to appreciate him, it seems to me that what you describe is the very action that people are describing as heroic.

jnbiche 13y ago

For the record, Lavabit routinely complied with search warrants, including one just months before this incident [1]. So what was different about this one? 1. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Maryland_District_Court/1--13-mj-00607/In_the_Matter_of_the_Search_of--_Lavabit_LLC_Email_Account_for_Joey006%40lavabit.com/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Maryland_District_Court/1-...

RexRollman 13y ago
It would have enabled to government to listen in to everyone using the service, not just get the information of the intended target.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Is that true? As I understood it, the original request was for pen/trap on Snowden alone; when that was refused and Levison threatened with contempt, he relented, only to be rebuked by DOJ with a new demand for blanket surveillance. But as I understand it, Levison could have complied with the earlier demand for surveillance narrowly targeting Snowden.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Yes it is true, it would have enabled FBI to listen in to everyone using the service. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487778
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    Your understanding is not accurate from my read of the court docs. They wanted their black box (you know the ones), called a pen/trap device in the documents, to be installed on the network. It won't work without the SSL keys, so they wanted those. He offered to modify his software to intercept a single user's email, but they said no.
acqq 13y ago
The difference is that FBI this time wanted to install their own equipment inside of his facilities (at the point where everything of every user is decrypted): http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801182/redacted-pleadings-exhibits-1-23.pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801182/redacted-pleadi... "shall furnish agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, forthwith , all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the installation and use of the pen/trap device." Before, they would really demand only the information of the user named in the court order. This time it was "just let us install this thing inside and don't ask."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lucajona 13y ago

>> You can't wave off court orders just because you think the Internet is some kind of libertarian cyber-paradise where mortal laws do not apply “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
Are you saying that the Pen Register Act is on par, morally, with Jim Crow?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 13y ago
  References to prior controversies should not be interpreted as implying a moral equivalence with current controversies.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  When it's used to attack whistleblowers, yes.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  That quote would have read “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws so long as those laws are of equal or greater unjustness than Jim Crow.”
- bigB 13y ago
  In essence yes at least in the context of this case, as it is essentially segregating those who wish to expose the illegal activity of the government, and those that wish to turn a blind eye. Remember, the NSA lied to congress, which is not only illegal but immoral in itself. Think about it, you get to sleep in your bed tonight, Snowden who knows where ?
lucajona 13y ago
>> Are you saying that the Pen Register Act is on par, morally, with Jim Crow? No.

arca_vorago 13y ago

"Lavabit shuts down, because it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative." Perfectly summing up your bias on the matter.

VexXtreme 13y ago

You sound awfully authoritarian. Just because its lawful doesn't mean it's morally right and that it should be blindly followed no questions asked. In Nazi Germany it was lawful and mandatory to report on Jews, communists and minorities and the inability to do so or aiding them in any way would often end in the death of the person involved. You can't throw out common sense and basic decency just because something is "the law".

thrownaway2424 13y ago
So you're saying that complying with a pen register order in a federal case is the same as reporting jews to the ss? I ask because there's another guy in this thread who equated pen registers with anti-interracial marriage laws. You guys should get together.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I see no suggestion of equivalency in either post, unless you think such examples represent the lower-bound of how out of line the law must be before you can reject it. Surely you don't think that... These examples establish that there is a limit to blindly pinning morality and the law. These examples to not make statements about where that limit is, nor do these examples serve to equate any of the governments' actions.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Both of the posts indirectly imply that complying with this specific pen register order would have been evil on the hitler/mlkjr scale, because they are both made in the context of this article. It would be pointless to say "One must not comply with evil laws, but this law isn't evil, so cool, nevermind what I was saying about evil." A comment that implies this specific court order was evil, or even moderately wrong, needs to be accompanied by supporting rhetoric about _why_ it was wrong, some indictment of our system of due process. Without such supporting arguments the comments are just disposable invocations of Godwin.
    - 13y ago

mcantelon 13y ago

The resistance to the initial request was likely because it targeted a whistleblower attempting to expose the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance, not a member of the "criminal class" (nice framing attempt). It was a courageous act of civil disobedience.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
alleged whistleblower At the time when Lavabit defied the initial court order, had Snowden been classified as a legitimate whistleblower (by the people who actually have the authority to make such a decision)?

zik 13y ago

> ...it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative. That's quite an assertion. I had an email account on lavabit. From what you're saying apparently that means I'm a criminal.

tptacek 13y ago
That's not the assertion he made.
jlgreco 13y ago
Technically that does not imply that all customers are criminals. Consider this transformation of your quote: "It turns that a bar serving beer to minors carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative" Now, this doesn't imply that a bar in only serves minors, though it does imply that the bar knowingly served minors (possibly among others). (This said, the quote is obviously a rather inflammatory way to describe their business, and Snowden was plainly not a member of some sort of "criminal class" (whatever that is).)

betterunix 13y ago

"it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative." The criminal class? Do you really think that only criminals want private email? I have shocking news for you: some of us use email encryption to protect ourselves from the criminal class. "Lavabit's business was not compatible with US laws" Actually it was entirely compatible with US laws. There is nothing illegal about encryption of any kind in this country. The hacker and cypherpunks communities fought throughout the 80s and 90s for the public's right to use strong encryption without back doors, and we, the people, came out winners.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
This wasn't strong encryption and had no privacy features whatsoever. Lavabit had the ability to track its users and decrypt their mail.

fetbaffe 13y ago

"because it turns out that hosting email for the criminal class carries real risks and isn't terribly lucrative." I guess that’s the reason the Post Office is doing so bad. I have an idea, why not tell the Post Office so send all letters via the FBI so we can check who sent them and to whom.