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

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.