6 ms·

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

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.
cdvonstinkpot 13y ago
He should have delivered the digital versions in punchcards.
- madaxe 13y ago
  Too kind. Baudot punchtape, screwed up into a ball and tied in knots. Perfectly compliant.
- shubb 13y ago
  For federal IT, this is probably still the preferred format...
shabble 13y ago
There are specific terms in the GPL[1], and probably elsewhere, that address this issue: [3(a)] Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; It's still open to some interpretation, such as exactly what constitutes "customary media", but probably does rule out the printed on the side of a cow[2] approach taken here. [1] from v2: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [2] http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/cowcheck.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/cowcheck.asp
specialist 13y ago
he complied with the original request Malicious compliance. Having tried to get useful answers via FOIA requests, I know first hand that playing stupid is standard procedure. Tit for tat. If the judge wanted an electronic copy... Yup. The persons making the policies and rulings often don't understand the technology. Like Levison, I'm more likely than not to do something spiteful, just to rub their noses in their ignorance.
- eli 13y ago
  > Tit for tat. More like "two wrongs"
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Ummm, no. Resisting evil is good. It's not like he destroyed someone's business or muzzled somebody's free speech.
    - HelloMcFly 13y ago
      It's not entirely fair to call this "resisting evil". The Feds went through the appropriate, judge-authorized channels to get the information. Is every search warrant an act of evil? And is each person served with the warrant the arbiter of what is evil and what isn't? I support what Snowden did. Yet we must admit that it was illegal, and the feds had every justification to get a warrant for is communications. This wasn't carte blanch monitoring, this was targeted data collection.
      - pkinsky 13y ago
        Evil and lawful are separate axes in morality space.
        HelloMcFly 13y ago
        Of course I realize that, but we're not talking about abstract concepts here, we're talking about a narrow and specific set of circumstances. Do you really think it was evil of the Feds to get a court order to inspect the communications of someone that was known to, without a shadow of a doubt, be leaking classified information? I do not. I think Snowden was right to do what he did, I think the Feds were right to respond with a search warrant request to investigate him, and I think the judge was right to grant it.

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.

cdvonstinkpot 13y ago

He should have delivered the digital versions in punchcards.

madaxe 13y ago
Too kind. Baudot punchtape, screwed up into a ball and tied in knots. Perfectly compliant.
shubb 13y ago
For federal IT, this is probably still the preferred format...

shabble 13y ago

There are specific terms in the GPL[1], and probably elsewhere, that address this issue: [3(a)] Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; It's still open to some interpretation, such as exactly what constitutes "customary media", but probably does rule out the printed on the side of a cow[2] approach taken here. [1] from v2: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [2] http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/cowcheck.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/cowcheck.asp

specialist 13y ago

he complied with the original request Malicious compliance. Having tried to get useful answers via FOIA requests, I know first hand that playing stupid is standard procedure. Tit for tat. If the judge wanted an electronic copy... Yup. The persons making the policies and rulings often don't understand the technology. Like Levison, I'm more likely than not to do something spiteful, just to rub their noses in their ignorance.

eli 13y ago
> Tit for tat. More like "two wrongs"
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Ummm, no. Resisting evil is good. It's not like he destroyed someone's business or muzzled somebody's free speech.
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    It's not entirely fair to call this "resisting evil". The Feds went through the appropriate, judge-authorized channels to get the information. Is every search warrant an act of evil? And is each person served with the warrant the arbiter of what is evil and what isn't? I support what Snowden did. Yet we must admit that it was illegal, and the feds had every justification to get a warrant for is communications. This wasn't carte blanch monitoring, this was targeted data collection.
    - pkinsky 13y ago
      Evil and lawful are separate axes in morality space.
      - HelloMcFly 13y ago
        Of course I realize that, but we're not talking about abstract concepts here, we're talking about a narrow and specific set of circumstances. Do you really think it was evil of the Feds to get a court order to inspect the communications of someone that was known to, without a shadow of a doubt, be leaking classified information? I do not. I think Snowden was right to do what he did, I think the Feds were right to respond with a search warrant request to investigate him, and I think the judge was right to grant it.