3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoWRONG. It would be the equivalent of opening ALL the safety deposit boxes. Using a hammer to thread a needle
- rhizome 13y agoNo 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