8 ms·

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

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.
      - anologwintermut 13y ago
        Im reasonably sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to. He's certainly made it sound like that. So first, I'd say he is being very dishonest (if the article is accurate) Second, a critical point in arguing against warrantless surveillance is that there are legitimate legal channels through which to get the necessary information when it's really needed and that those same channels make the NSA's conduct completely and totally illegal. Failing to abide by those mechanisms makes it hard to make that argument. It's like having the EFF sticker that says "come back with a warrant" and then a "Fuck the police" sticker next to it.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        > "Im reasonable sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to." I cannot speak for anybody else, but feel free to consider me among those who consider the later to be heroic. He stuck his neck out for people that he doesn't know, but for whom he feels an obligation to protect. He gave up his business to do it. Legalities never play a role in my considerations of heroism (except in cases where something being illegal actually serves to make it more heroic, due to the personal sacrifice that typically implies).
        caf 13y ago
        Do you really think that the SSL private keys turned over for this legitimate and specific warrant wouldn't have found their way into the warrantless wiretapping program?
- nl 13y ago
  Let's not dance around on this. That warrant was different because it was for Edward Snowden. Lavabit clearly feels he is a legitimate whistleblower. There is a reasonable argument that protecting a whistleblower from surveillance is morally valid (especially when his opposition to surveillance is the core of ). Whether or not one thinks Lavabit should have done this probably depends on one's views on what Snowden did.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    I'm not certain that lavabit should be unilaterally deciding who the good guys and bad guys are. That's something that happens later.
    - 59nadir 13y ago
      Well, if everyone decided that "happens later" he'd most likely be dead or in Guantanamo Bay right now, so... Someone has to make a decision based on their own values at some point. Not everyone completely lacks conviction and ideals, you know.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        When was the last time somebody was shipped off to Guantanamo Bay? And seriously, dead? The first warrant the FBI requested was dated June 28th. Snowden was already in Moscow. How would Lavabit cooperating with the warrant have resulted in dead?
        zero_intp 13y ago
        It could mean ill things for any of the people who are holding his insurance policies.
    - fetbaffe 13y ago
      Yes, instead let the US government do that unilaterally. Clearly better.
  - 13y ago
- acqq 13y ago
  Where do you read that "only one user"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487852
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Uh... in the document you linked to. Exhibit 2 (bottom of page 1, top of page 2) says this, exactly: > IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3123, that a pet/trap device may be installed and used by Lavabit and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to capture all non-content dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information (as described and limited in the Application), sent from or sent to the SUBJECT ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, to record the date and time of the initiation and receipt of such transmissions, to record the duration of the transmissions, and to record user log-in data (date, time, duration, and Internet Protocol address of all log-ins) on the SUBJECT, ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, all for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of such Order or the date the monitoring equipment becomes operational, whichever occurs later;

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.
    - anologwintermut 13y ago
      Im reasonably sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to. He's certainly made it sound like that. So first, I'd say he is being very dishonest (if the article is accurate) Second, a critical point in arguing against warrantless surveillance is that there are legitimate legal channels through which to get the necessary information when it's really needed and that those same channels make the NSA's conduct completely and totally illegal. Failing to abide by those mechanisms makes it hard to make that argument. It's like having the EFF sticker that says "come back with a warrant" and then a "Fuck the police" sticker next to it.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > "Im reasonable sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to." I cannot speak for anybody else, but feel free to consider me among those who consider the later to be heroic. He stuck his neck out for people that he doesn't know, but for whom he feels an obligation to protect. He gave up his business to do it. Legalities never play a role in my considerations of heroism (except in cases where something being illegal actually serves to make it more heroic, due to the personal sacrifice that typically implies).
      - caf 13y ago
        Do you really think that the SSL private keys turned over for this legitimate and specific warrant wouldn't have found their way into the warrantless wiretapping program?
nl 13y ago
Let's not dance around on this. That warrant was different because it was for Edward Snowden. Lavabit clearly feels he is a legitimate whistleblower. There is a reasonable argument that protecting a whistleblower from surveillance is morally valid (especially when his opposition to surveillance is the core of ). Whether or not one thinks Lavabit should have done this probably depends on one's views on what Snowden did.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  I'm not certain that lavabit should be unilaterally deciding who the good guys and bad guys are. That's something that happens later.
  - 59nadir 13y ago
    Well, if everyone decided that "happens later" he'd most likely be dead or in Guantanamo Bay right now, so... Someone has to make a decision based on their own values at some point. Not everyone completely lacks conviction and ideals, you know.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      When was the last time somebody was shipped off to Guantanamo Bay? And seriously, dead? The first warrant the FBI requested was dated June 28th. Snowden was already in Moscow. How would Lavabit cooperating with the warrant have resulted in dead?
      - zero_intp 13y ago
        It could mean ill things for any of the people who are holding his insurance policies.
  - fetbaffe 13y ago
    Yes, instead let the US government do that unilaterally. Clearly better.
- 13y ago
acqq 13y ago
Where do you read that "only one user"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487852
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Uh... in the document you linked to. Exhibit 2 (bottom of page 1, top of page 2) says this, exactly: > IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3123, that a pet/trap device may be installed and used by Lavabit and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to capture all non-content dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information (as described and limited in the Application), sent from or sent to the SUBJECT ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, to record the date and time of the initiation and receipt of such transmissions, to record the duration of the transmissions, and to record user log-in data (date, time, duration, and Internet Protocol address of all log-ins) on the SUBJECT, ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, all for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of such Order or the date the monitoring equipment becomes operational, whichever occurs later;