3 ms·
That judge is kind of a pushover. Hes not happy the government would have to trust Lavabit with their solution, but he doesn't even begin to question the govern
by revelation 13y ago
That judge is kind of a pushover. Hes not happy the government would have to trust Lavabit with their solution, but he doesn't even begin to question the governments proposal to just MITM all the traffic through a box with unknown software operated by whoever with certainly no tamper-safe logs of any kind.
It's likely because his level of technical competence barely suffices to turn a computer on, but yet he gets to decide on these cases, and the gov lawyer happily aids in his ignorance by supplying factually wrong technical sounding terms (the 'metadata stream') and analogues from an analog world (a 'filter').
- plorg 13y agoThat is a bad reason, yes. However, the prosecutor also objected to Levison's proposal to supply metadata, where he would wait until the 60 days were up, decrypt the stored messages (from which, to my knowledge, he could only read the headers unencrypted - the body is encrypted with PGP, I think), strip the "Subject" headers (per the legal standards on pen/trap orders) and then deliver that data to the FBI, via SCP, in bulk. One reason that this was rejected, then, was that it did not fulfill the requirements of the 'trap/trace' part of the order, which require the metadata to be provided in real time or close to real time.