8 ms·

This is what happens when you try to "hack" the legal system as if it was a simple, deterministic computer program (it comes up here frequently as the "FBI wasn

This is what happens when you try to "hack" the legal system as if it was a simple, deterministic computer program (it comes up here frequently as the "FBI wasn't here"-sign-in-library hack). When a judge orders you to do something, you have to comply with the substance of the order, not evade it by sort-of technically complying while actually avoiding it. I have all the respect in the world for Levison, he did the right thing and it takes guts. But trying to "hack" a judge's order is just silly.

devx 13y ago
I don't know. It might've been worth a shot to send it in PDF format the second time, after he asked to deliver it digitally, just as a sign of protest. Didn't Twitter refuse to comply with a judge's order once, too?
contextual 13y ago
Levison's response was a courageous form of protest. Your response is smug and naive. You have no clue what he went through. It's easy to call the right game plays from your armchair.
rjknight 13y ago
I disagree. If the judge wanted an electronic copy then he or she could ask for that, which is indeed what the judge later did. Levison would have known that his initial 'compliance' wouldn't make the problem go away, but it did buy him some time while the judge figured out what to do next (or the FBI figured out that they needed to be more precise in what they were asking for). He didn't refuse to comply at any point - he complied with the original request, at which point the judge gave him fresh instructions and ordered him to comply with those or face a fine. Consider it from another perspective - people often request data from governments or large corporations and, when ordered or pressured into providing it they often do so in the least helpful format available. They are rarely punished for this because the law doesn't really have a position on whether CSV is a better document format than PDFs of scanned printouts, or whether a 50-page printout is more useful than a CD-ROM or USB stick. Why should the rules be any different for someone like Levison?
- gedrap 13y ago
  >>He didn't refuse to comply at any point - he complied with the original request Just like the parent said, while he kind of technically complied. But, again, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's not what was expected/demanded from him. >>Why should the rules be any different for someone like Levison? Because it's related to Snowden. Again, it's quite obvious to everyone, that it's a hot issue and the government might go far to solve it. Like it was said above, while I really support and respect Levison, it's not something you should be trying to fool - it's not a computer program...
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    When you have lost, the best you can do is to lose with dignity: he had lost (either by complying, whereby he would be failing to his clients or by not complying, whereby he would suffer a penalty). He took what looks to me the better option: comply "formally". So that he cannot be said to have not obeyed the mandate and at the same time making it clear that he did not want to comply. Against the Leviathan the only possible defense is foolishness. This gives you publicity (in a '''''free''''' society and the conscience of your own freedom).
  - weland 13y ago
    > Just like the parent said, while he kind of technically complied. But, again, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's not what was expected/demanded from him. Government and judicial institutions do this all the time, so to anyone with a common sense, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's exactly what was expected/demanded from him.
  - rjknight 13y ago
    Just like the parent said, while he kind of technically complied. But, again, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's not what was expected/demanded from him. No, it really isn't. This is precisely why interactions between the law and technology are often quite confusing, because there's a mismatch between what the law says and the technological reality. It wasn't obvious what the law was demanding of him because such demands are rare and judges haven't figured out a boilerplate form of words to ask for the surrender of PGP keys or SSL certificates in particular file formats yet, and so they ask in general terms for 'encryption keys', leaving much open to interpretation. The existence of such ambiguities is why lawyers earn as much money as they do. Levison wasn't 'fooling' the law at any point - he complied with the request as presented to him. The FBI wasn't happy with that response and went back to the judge for a more tightly-worded request, backed up by a threat of fines. At no point was the legal process subverted, 'hacked' or 'fooled'. My point is that this is how the law works. If a judge wants you to do something then it is incumbent upon the judge to specify clearly what that is. You can't refuse without facing legal sanctions, but if the judge is vague or imprecise then you have at least some freedom to interpret the judge's instructions yourself. As I said earlier, corporate and government lawyers are experts in finding the most favourable interpretation of judicial rulings for their clients, and many legal cases revolve around reaching an interpretation of the law that is unambiguous enough to be enforceable. Because it's related to Snowden. Again, it's quite obvious to everyone, that it's a hot issue and the government might go far to solve it. Like it was said above, while I really support and respect Levison, it's not something you should be trying to fool - it's not a computer program... What are you trying to say here? Sure, the government cares a lot about this case. But the judiciary and the government are not the same thing, and the law, as a matter of principle, is meant to apply equally in all cases. There are no special cases where the law should be applied differently because the case has the attention of senior government officials. You might say that I am being somewhat naive in that belief, but I think that most judges would agree that their role is as neutral arbiters of the law, not agents of the government of the day. There is absolutely no sense in which it's possible to describe Levison's actions as incorrect. You can believe that he should have surrendered the keys in electronic format immediately, despite not being asked to do so, or you believe that he should have refused point blank to disclose them and thus disobey the judicial order, but those options are variously immoral or illegal, and the action of providing the printed copies of the keys was neither.
DanBC 13y ago
> I have all the respect in the world for Levison, he did the right thing and it takes guts. But trying to "hack" a judge's order is just silly. Perhaps he knew it was silly but just wanted something to show he's trying to resist the order. It's been a very popular move with people, and probably caused people to remember who he is, increasing customers for his next business. It's a shame he's still got so little in the legal defence fund. $20,000 is nothing for a legal case.
aric 13y ago
Conscientious objections aren't silly. He's risking further abuse. It takes guts, just as you say. It takes guts specifically because he's unwilling to gracefully comply. "Monkey-wrenching" usually appears silly to people who are defeatist or subservient to a particular order/agenda. I'm not saying you are. I appreciate your comment otherwise. I'm only suggesting that you reconsider your view on his tactic, if only a delaying tactic, as an act of courage rather than silliness.
squidi 13y ago
Civil disobedience can be a wonderful thing. If the Civil Rights movement followed every judge's instruction they would not have achieved what they did.
msy 13y ago
There's plenty of examples of governments forced to comply with open data/FOIA doing precisely this. You can definitely hack the legal system, you just need to understand it fully and properly first, which tends to be where people, particularly hackers with high opinions of their own abilities fall down.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>When a judge orders you to do something, you have to comply with the substance of the order, not evade it by sort-of technically complying while actually avoiding it. Attorneys do this kind of crap all of the time. Often, when ordered to provide docs for discovery, they will print pdfs and re-scan them in (sometimes over and over again, to make them barely legible) to make opposing counsel's task that much harder. The judge in this case may not have had much appreciation for Levison's wit, but it may not be as silly as you think. Perhaps Levison knew he was at the end-game and merely needed a brief delay to tidy up some loose end, in which case his tactic worked well.
kabdib 13y ago
Tit for tat -- you ask the government for information, and it comes back all redacted.
MagicWishMonkey 13y ago
He didn't hack anything, this was a simple act of civil disobedience. Nothing more.
ajays 13y ago
I disagree. "Hacking" the system by creatively interpreting the laws is what lawyers do! It's their job to hack the legal code to their clients' benefit.
mathattack 13y ago
It's kind of like paying a fine in pennies. Couldn't they just scan the document?
darkarmani 13y ago
> This is what happens when you try to "hack" the legal system What happens? The prosecution has to go back to the judge and demand a different format? What a terrible consequence.
ihsw 13y ago
You're implying malicious intent, but he may have simply wanted to buy some time. The number of options to defer punitive measures will have been very limited and this one seems pretty straight-forward.
njharman 13y ago
I view it as form of protest / civil disobedience. And of course PR.
noonespecial 13y ago
Hacking the legal system in exactly this spirit is fully 1/3 of a common lawyer's daily job.
neves 13y ago
Google is doing it in Brazil. They say it isn't necessary to comply to Brazilian laws because their servers aren't located in Brazil. BTW, it is a lie. See: ping google.com PING google.com (201.17.31.88) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=1 ttl=60 time=11.8 ms 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=2 ttl=60 time=12.9 ms 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=3 ttl=60 time=11.5 ms 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=4 ttl=60 time=13.1 ms I'm in Rio de Janeiro. In 6ms travelling at the speed of ligth, I'd travel 1800km. Florida (the nearest American state) is more than 7000km far from my city.

devx 13y ago

I don't know. It might've been worth a shot to send it in PDF format the second time, after he asked to deliver it digitally, just as a sign of protest. Didn't Twitter refuse to comply with a judge's order once, too?

contextual 13y ago

Levison's response was a courageous form of protest. Your response is smug and naive. You have no clue what he went through. It's easy to call the right game plays from your armchair.

rjknight 13y ago

I disagree. If the judge wanted an electronic copy then he or she could ask for that, which is indeed what the judge later did. Levison would have known that his initial 'compliance' wouldn't make the problem go away, but it did buy him some time while the judge figured out what to do next (or the FBI figured out that they needed to be more precise in what they were asking for). He didn't refuse to comply at any point - he complied with the original request, at which point the judge gave him fresh instructions and ordered him to comply with those or face a fine. Consider it from another perspective - people often request data from governments or large corporations and, when ordered or pressured into providing it they often do so in the least helpful format available. They are rarely punished for this because the law doesn't really have a position on whether CSV is a better document format than PDFs of scanned printouts, or whether a 50-page printout is more useful than a CD-ROM or USB stick. Why should the rules be any different for someone like Levison?

gedrap 13y ago
>>He didn't refuse to comply at any point - he complied with the original request Just like the parent said, while he kind of technically complied. But, again, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's not what was expected/demanded from him. >>Why should the rules be any different for someone like Levison? Because it's related to Snowden. Again, it's quite obvious to everyone, that it's a hot issue and the government might go far to solve it. Like it was said above, while I really support and respect Levison, it's not something you should be trying to fool - it's not a computer program...
- pfortuny 13y ago
  When you have lost, the best you can do is to lose with dignity: he had lost (either by complying, whereby he would be failing to his clients or by not complying, whereby he would suffer a penalty). He took what looks to me the better option: comply "formally". So that he cannot be said to have not obeyed the mandate and at the same time making it clear that he did not want to comply. Against the Leviathan the only possible defense is foolishness. This gives you publicity (in a '''''free''''' society and the conscience of your own freedom).
- weland 13y ago
  > Just like the parent said, while he kind of technically complied. But, again, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's not what was expected/demanded from him. Government and judicial institutions do this all the time, so to anyone with a common sense, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's exactly what was expected/demanded from him.
- rjknight 13y ago
  Just like the parent said, while he kind of technically complied. But, again, it's more than obvious to everyone that it's not what was expected/demanded from him. No, it really isn't. This is precisely why interactions between the law and technology are often quite confusing, because there's a mismatch between what the law says and the technological reality. It wasn't obvious what the law was demanding of him because such demands are rare and judges haven't figured out a boilerplate form of words to ask for the surrender of PGP keys or SSL certificates in particular file formats yet, and so they ask in general terms for 'encryption keys', leaving much open to interpretation. The existence of such ambiguities is why lawyers earn as much money as they do. Levison wasn't 'fooling' the law at any point - he complied with the request as presented to him. The FBI wasn't happy with that response and went back to the judge for a more tightly-worded request, backed up by a threat of fines. At no point was the legal process subverted, 'hacked' or 'fooled'. My point is that this is how the law works. If a judge wants you to do something then it is incumbent upon the judge to specify clearly what that is. You can't refuse without facing legal sanctions, but if the judge is vague or imprecise then you have at least some freedom to interpret the judge's instructions yourself. As I said earlier, corporate and government lawyers are experts in finding the most favourable interpretation of judicial rulings for their clients, and many legal cases revolve around reaching an interpretation of the law that is unambiguous enough to be enforceable. Because it's related to Snowden. Again, it's quite obvious to everyone, that it's a hot issue and the government might go far to solve it. Like it was said above, while I really support and respect Levison, it's not something you should be trying to fool - it's not a computer program... What are you trying to say here? Sure, the government cares a lot about this case. But the judiciary and the government are not the same thing, and the law, as a matter of principle, is meant to apply equally in all cases. There are no special cases where the law should be applied differently because the case has the attention of senior government officials. You might say that I am being somewhat naive in that belief, but I think that most judges would agree that their role is as neutral arbiters of the law, not agents of the government of the day. There is absolutely no sense in which it's possible to describe Levison's actions as incorrect. You can believe that he should have surrendered the keys in electronic format immediately, despite not being asked to do so, or you believe that he should have refused point blank to disclose them and thus disobey the judicial order, but those options are variously immoral or illegal, and the action of providing the printed copies of the keys was neither.

DanBC 13y ago

> I have all the respect in the world for Levison, he did the right thing and it takes guts. But trying to "hack" a judge's order is just silly. Perhaps he knew it was silly but just wanted something to show he's trying to resist the order. It's been a very popular move with people, and probably caused people to remember who he is, increasing customers for his next business. It's a shame he's still got so little in the legal defence fund. $20,000 is nothing for a legal case.

aric 13y ago

Conscientious objections aren't silly. He's risking further abuse. It takes guts, just as you say. It takes guts specifically because he's unwilling to gracefully comply. "Monkey-wrenching" usually appears silly to people who are defeatist or subservient to a particular order/agenda. I'm not saying you are. I appreciate your comment otherwise. I'm only suggesting that you reconsider your view on his tactic, if only a delaying tactic, as an act of courage rather than silliness.

squidi 13y ago

Civil disobedience can be a wonderful thing. If the Civil Rights movement followed every judge's instruction they would not have achieved what they did.

msy 13y ago

There's plenty of examples of governments forced to comply with open data/FOIA doing precisely this. You can definitely hack the legal system, you just need to understand it fully and properly first, which tends to be where people, particularly hackers with high opinions of their own abilities fall down.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>When a judge orders you to do something, you have to comply with the substance of the order, not evade it by sort-of technically complying while actually avoiding it. Attorneys do this kind of crap all of the time. Often, when ordered to provide docs for discovery, they will print pdfs and re-scan them in (sometimes over and over again, to make them barely legible) to make opposing counsel's task that much harder. The judge in this case may not have had much appreciation for Levison's wit, but it may not be as silly as you think. Perhaps Levison knew he was at the end-game and merely needed a brief delay to tidy up some loose end, in which case his tactic worked well.

kabdib 13y ago

Tit for tat -- you ask the government for information, and it comes back all redacted.

MagicWishMonkey 13y ago

He didn't hack anything, this was a simple act of civil disobedience. Nothing more.

ajays 13y ago

I disagree. "Hacking" the system by creatively interpreting the laws is what lawyers do! It's their job to hack the legal code to their clients' benefit.

mathattack 13y ago

It's kind of like paying a fine in pennies. Couldn't they just scan the document?

darkarmani 13y ago

> This is what happens when you try to "hack" the legal system What happens? The prosecution has to go back to the judge and demand a different format? What a terrible consequence.

ihsw 13y ago

You're implying malicious intent, but he may have simply wanted to buy some time. The number of options to defer punitive measures will have been very limited and this one seems pretty straight-forward.

njharman 13y ago

I view it as form of protest / civil disobedience. And of course PR.

noonespecial 13y ago

Hacking the legal system in exactly this spirit is fully 1/3 of a common lawyer's daily job.

neves 13y ago

Google is doing it in Brazil. They say it isn't necessary to comply to Brazilian laws because their servers aren't located in Brazil. BTW, it is a lie. See: ping google.com PING google.com (201.17.31.88) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=1 ttl=60 time=11.8 ms 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=2 ttl=60 time=12.9 ms 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=3 ttl=60 time=11.5 ms 64 bytes from c9111f58.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.88): icmp_req=4 ttl=60 time=13.1 ms I'm in Rio de Janeiro. In 6ms travelling at the speed of ligth, I'd travel 1800km. Florida (the nearest American state) is more than 7000km far from my city.