3 ms·

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 wiretappin

by 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.
- newman314 13y ago
  WRONG. It would be the equivalent of opening ALL the safety deposit boxes. Using a hammer to thread a needle
- rhizome 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 If the data is being acquired under EO 12333, they don't have to report anything to the FISC nor Congress. Where do you see "serious" oversight occurring? http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/10/02/james-clapper-proves-inadequate-oversight-by-refusing-to-answer-eo-12333-questions/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/10/02/james-clapper-proves-in... http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2008/20080731.asp http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2008/20080731.asp

by 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.

newman314 13y ago
WRONG. It would be the equivalent of opening ALL the safety deposit boxes. Using a hammer to thread a needle
rhizome 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 If the data is being acquired under EO 12333, they don't have to report anything to the FISC nor Congress. Where do you see "serious" oversight occurring? http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/10/02/james-clapper-proves-inadequate-oversight-by-refusing-to-answer-eo-12333-questions/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/10/02/james-clapper-proves-in... http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2008/20080731.asp http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2008/20080731.asp