4 ms·

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 w

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.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Levison's conduct in prior incidents shows that he had cooperated with the gov't when the scope was limited to a single account. It is only when the gov't pushed for the ability to decrypt all customers' data that he refused.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Don't focus too much on Snowden. The rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to this discussion. Levison provided a lawful service to willing consumers. Snowden was the pretext the FBI used, but it's clear in this case that they also wanted the ability to surveil other customers of Levison's besides Snowden. That's evil.
    - HelloMcFly 13y ago
      > Don't focus too much on Snowden. The rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to this discussion. Snowden is the context. Ignoring the context in rarely a good idea. And while I agree that the rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to the discussion, his actual behavior is most certainly germane. If the Feds requested, and received, a court order because Snowden wrote a critical blog entry of the government that would be one thing. Requesting and having it granted because of his actual actions is another thing entirely. > Snowden was the pretext the FBI used, but it's clear in this case that they also wanted the ability to surveil other customers of Levison's besides Snowden. Is that absolutely clear to you? Because it isn't to me. The Feds gave Levison a chance to provide lawfully requested information on Snowden that did not require decryption and Levison refused. Okay, if they couldn't compel Levison to alter his code to provide the requested metadata, they could compel him to give up the keys to that information directly. What do you expect them to do? Give up and go home? Pout? Levison stood up for his convictions and I applaud him for that. I'd like to think that I would have done the same thing in his shoes. That doesn't mean I vilify the Feds for doing what they did. I don't feel anyone acted unreasonably, much less evil, at least not with the information we have available to us right now.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        Is that absolutely clear to you? Because it isn't to me. From the "big announcement" earlier today: During an investigation into several Lavabit user accounts, the federal government demanded both unfettered access to all user communications and a copy of the Lavabit encryption keys used to secure web, instant message and email traffic.
        HelloMcFly 13y ago
        Right, that's the same thing I just typed. They requested the encryption key that would give them access to everything after Levison refused to modify his code to give them access to only the one thing. If they're able to get a warrant for Snowden's data, and the only way they can lawfully obtain it is a method that also gives them access to everything, then that's what they are going to do. Like I said, I don't find that evil. From their perspective, the only way to lawfully get Snowden's data incidentally required they get the keys to all of the data.

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.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Levison's conduct in prior incidents shows that he had cooperated with the gov't when the scope was limited to a single account. It is only when the gov't pushed for the ability to decrypt all customers' data that he refused.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Don't focus too much on Snowden. The rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to this discussion. Levison provided a lawful service to willing consumers. Snowden was the pretext the FBI used, but it's clear in this case that they also wanted the ability to surveil other customers of Levison's besides Snowden. That's evil.
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    > Don't focus too much on Snowden. The rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to this discussion. Snowden is the context. Ignoring the context in rarely a good idea. And while I agree that the rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to the discussion, his actual behavior is most certainly germane. If the Feds requested, and received, a court order because Snowden wrote a critical blog entry of the government that would be one thing. Requesting and having it granted because of his actual actions is another thing entirely. > Snowden was the pretext the FBI used, but it's clear in this case that they also wanted the ability to surveil other customers of Levison's besides Snowden. Is that absolutely clear to you? Because it isn't to me. The Feds gave Levison a chance to provide lawfully requested information on Snowden that did not require decryption and Levison refused. Okay, if they couldn't compel Levison to alter his code to provide the requested metadata, they could compel him to give up the keys to that information directly. What do you expect them to do? Give up and go home? Pout? Levison stood up for his convictions and I applaud him for that. I'd like to think that I would have done the same thing in his shoes. That doesn't mean I vilify the Feds for doing what they did. I don't feel anyone acted unreasonably, much less evil, at least not with the information we have available to us right now.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Is that absolutely clear to you? Because it isn't to me. From the "big announcement" earlier today: During an investigation into several Lavabit user accounts, the federal government demanded both unfettered access to all user communications and a copy of the Lavabit encryption keys used to secure web, instant message and email traffic.
      - HelloMcFly 13y ago
        Right, that's the same thing I just typed. They requested the encryption key that would give them access to everything after Levison refused to modify his code to give them access to only the one thing. If they're able to get a warrant for Snowden's data, and the only way they can lawfully obtain it is a method that also gives them access to everything, then that's what they are going to do. Like I said, I don't find that evil. From their perspective, the only way to lawfully get Snowden's data incidentally required they get the keys to all of the data.