4 ms·

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 serv

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?
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        Lavabit had already defied court orders BEFORE they were asked for SSL keys. So it is kind of a moot point. Had they complied with the initial order, SSL keys likely would not have been requested.
      - anologwintermut 13y ago
        No I don't at all, not at least without serious oversight by a federal judge and even then I'd prefer not to have to rely on that. But according to the article, they didn't originally ask for SSL private keys. They asked for Lavabit to give them Snowden's password the next time he logged in. They only resorted to that after they decided Lavabit couldn't be trusted for delaying and refusing to comply with the original court order. Suppose Lavabit was a bank who got a court order to hand over the contents of a safety deposit box belonging to Snowden and refuses. The FBI demands Lavabit now open the safe that contains all the safety deposit boxs so they can go throw and find Snowden's box and open it. <Edit> and you just have to "trust" them they won't open everything</edit>. This is roughly what happened. Lavabit is basically claiming that the FBI started out with the break open everything tactic. They are, if the article is true, lying.

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?
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      Lavabit had already defied court orders BEFORE they were asked for SSL keys. So it is kind of a moot point. Had they complied with the initial order, SSL keys likely would not have been requested.
    - anologwintermut 13y ago
      No I don't at all, not at least without serious oversight by a federal judge and even then I'd prefer not to have to rely on that. But according to the article, they didn't originally ask for SSL private keys. They asked for Lavabit to give them Snowden's password the next time he logged in. They only resorted to that after they decided Lavabit couldn't be trusted for delaying and refusing to comply with the original court order. Suppose Lavabit was a bank who got a court order to hand over the contents of a safety deposit box belonging to Snowden and refuses. The FBI demands Lavabit now open the safe that contains all the safety deposit boxs so they can go throw and find Snowden's box and open it. <Edit> and you just have to "trust" them they won't open everything</edit>. This is roughly what happened. Lavabit is basically claiming that the FBI started out with the break open everything tactic. They are, if the article is true, lying.