9 ms·

The integrity and bravery he has shown in this fight is impressive. He has definitely earned enough "cred" to restart this business outside the US and be very

by jobu 13y ago

The integrity and bravery he has shown in this fight is impressive. He has definitely earned enough "cred" to restart this business outside the US and be very successful.

redbeard0x0a 13y ago
We really need more companies (and those in control of those companies) that stand up for their customers this same way. A public company would not have been able to make this play, so keep that in mind when you are making decisions about where to put your data.
- wyck 13y ago
  I think Qwest Communications was a public company when they refused to comply with the NSA.
  - lnanek2 13y ago
    Didn't they die after that due to the government canceling contracts with them?
    - lymie 13y ago
      Didn't Eric Schmidt lose his discount NASA airplane fuel when Google's lawyers started fighting their gag orders in court?
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      They've been merged into CenturyLink, but I doubt that's because of losing some government contracts. Those would be a drop in the bucket for an ILEC. USA telco consolidation is inexorable, for anti-consumer reasons. Actually it's only a matter of time before VZN acquires CenturyLink and then spins its less profitable/deadwood pieces back out to private equity firms. Much money will be made by executives, and much wailing to PUCs will be heard when service craters.
  - CaptainZapp 13y ago
    And if I recall correctly their ex-CEO is now in jail on allegedly trumped up charges. If true this is utterly despicable by the government. Alas, I'm not surprised.
    - 65_196_127_226 13y ago
      Is insider trading a trumped-up charge? I didn't hear the internet outrage about Enron's CFO being indicted for the same charge.
      - gknoy 13y ago
        If I recall right, the reason it was considered insider trading was that he had published numbers expecting a contract from the government. When he chose to stand up for principles, the contact never landed, which made those predictions false. I'd appreciate a clearer explanation of this, but last time I read about it, it really did seem like the loss of the contract was out of revenge, and that his prosecution would never have happened had he caved to the requests which he felt were unconscionable.
        tedunangst 13y ago
        The problem is he dumped the stock after it became clear (to him) they weren't getting the contracts, but before he told anyone else.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        Insider trading by itself is not a trumped up charge - probably none of the charges possible by the US Code are by itself. What makes it trumped up is the particular circumstance - the details of the case. And the details look definitely very fishy.
    - andrewcooke 13y ago
      he was recently released.
- antocv 13y ago
  > A public company would not have been able to make this play, Isnt it funny to hear that a public company would not have been able to do something when it is about something good for its consumers and ultimately its country and citizens, but when it is something extremely bad like compliance, obedience and evilness then they suddenly can and are free to do it. There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. It is like Obama, when it comes to do something good then his hands are tied, when it comes to break laws and shit on constitution to extend mass surveillance or to wage war and drone kill civilians then his hands are not tied. Now, lets hear some more excuses for the way the most successful tech-companies have acted, their hands were tied, they would face huge repercussions, they didnt know better, they only meant to comply with law and so on. The truth is, they dont have democracy in interest, or their consumers best in interest, in fact you as consumer and user for their services and these companies are diametrically opposed and for your best you should consider them enemies.
  - misnome 13y ago
    > There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. Try being CEO of Google, Facebook, or Microsoft, and suddenly deciding to close the entire business, and see how far you get before being removed.
    - antocv 13y ago
      There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Lavabit founder finally is allowed to speak about this. It is enough if you threaten to shut down the business to make it known to the G-men that you wont play (the totalitarian) ball. We stopped SOPA/PIPA just with a partial blackout. But these companies didnt make a squeek. They are accomplices.
      - sanderjd 13y ago
        > There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Yeah, but not if it's an empty gesture that doesn't change anything. Any CEO of Google both wouldn't be able to shut it down rather than comply, and would be removed for trying. It would accomplish nothing.
anologwintermut 13y ago
He shouldn't have any "cred" when it comes to security or availability. Maybe with sticking it to the man, but that doesn't a secure service make. The system did serve sider encryption and decryption. Lavabit has, in the past, complied with court orders for data. They have access to the data. This is the fundamental problem with Lavabit. It's rather unclear why they didn't comply with the initial court order in this case which was just for data on Snowden's account, but it's clear they could have complied (though maybe not as quickly as the Fed's wanted) and that they have in the past. So, if you are contemplating using Lavabit II, keep in mind that sooner or latter it will get a lawful court order for data from whatever jurisdiction it's in. Either it will comply with it --- in which case it's street cred is worthless --- or it will refuse with the same apparent "fuck the police" bravado everyone likes , leading to the same set of escalations that happened here. The end of that is either/all of 1) the service failing because of computer seizure/the founder being held in contempt so he can't maintain it 2) Him caving and handing over keys again or 3) him shutting down the service to prevent 2. None of these are good. If the court order is targeted at you, there is a decent chance your data is handed over. If it's not, there is a decent chance your data is still handed over or the service goes under. Oh, and lastly, if your worried about the NSA's dragnet surveillance, they can just hack a foreign server. Don't rely on non-end-to-end secure systems.
- jamiesonbecker 13y ago
  There are no end-to-end secure systems. So you're typing this on OpenBSD? Sure, because that's secure. Your RPM's are signed, so you're pretty sure they're safe? Or you're using Funtoo or Arch and compiling from source? Have you read all that source? Even if you did, did you UNDERSTAND it all? Are you using an Intel Ivy-Bridge or later processor with RdRand? Are you using a phone? Do you log into your webmail from one or more locations? How about email? Do you trust SSL certificates? which ones? And now... are all of those one other person that you're writing to that actually also uses GPG exercising the same caution? :) I'm just saying... if you want to know that you're not being sniffed, you have to simply make it impossibly expensive to do so, which probably means get on a plane, meet and hand the person a note, and then burn it, and then scatter the ashes to the seven winds. Then worry about the metadata of your flight, time, license plate readers, traffic and surveillance cameras. The basic problem is that allowing this continued, blatant destruction of the 4th Amendment threatens the entire Bill of Rights which ultimately threatens the very foundation of our government and the rule of law. Legal power, jail, and bullets trump crypto.
moxie 13y ago
We should celebrate Ladar for making the decision to put himself at risk in order to protect his users, but I think we should be careful not to forget that Ladar was forced to make that decision because the security of Lavabit was all a total handwave. This wasn't untested water, either. The exact same thing happened to Hushmail for the exact same reason, and should have been evidence enough that the model isn't viable. So I think we should definitely support Ladar as a person, but we also need to be careful not to confuse that with supporting Lavabit, which was a very real danger that should never be repeated again (again).
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  How was it a handwave if it actually worked? And this is the first time I've heard that Hushmail was forced to betray their users, rather than doing it in response to a simple request. Do you have more information on that?
  - socillion 13y ago
    Being legally bound to give up the information is equivalent to being forced. If it wasn't forcible, why did Lavabit have to choose between compliance and shutting down? Could you clarify what you mean by "How was it a handwave if it actually worked?" Lavabit, like Hushmail, has had no problem giving up information to law enforcement in the past.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      I think I missed some important things lavabit had done in the past, I concede.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "How was it a handwave if it actually worked?" Ladar claimed that he had no way to access user emails. The hidden subtext of that, which was sort of hand-waved away, was that he had no such access with the code he had written, and that all that stood between your mail and his eyes was his own willingness to write that code. The entire security of Lavabit depends on Ladar and his principles.

by jobu 13y ago

The integrity and bravery he has shown in this fight is impressive. He has definitely earned enough "cred" to restart this business outside the US and be very successful.

redbeard0x0a 13y ago

We really need more companies (and those in control of those companies) that stand up for their customers this same way. A public company would not have been able to make this play, so keep that in mind when you are making decisions about where to put your data.

wyck 13y ago
I think Qwest Communications was a public company when they refused to comply with the NSA.
- lnanek2 13y ago
  Didn't they die after that due to the government canceling contracts with them?
  - lymie 13y ago
    Didn't Eric Schmidt lose his discount NASA airplane fuel when Google's lawyers started fighting their gag orders in court?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    They've been merged into CenturyLink, but I doubt that's because of losing some government contracts. Those would be a drop in the bucket for an ILEC. USA telco consolidation is inexorable, for anti-consumer reasons. Actually it's only a matter of time before VZN acquires CenturyLink and then spins its less profitable/deadwood pieces back out to private equity firms. Much money will be made by executives, and much wailing to PUCs will be heard when service craters.
- CaptainZapp 13y ago
  And if I recall correctly their ex-CEO is now in jail on allegedly trumped up charges. If true this is utterly despicable by the government. Alas, I'm not surprised.
  - 65_196_127_226 13y ago
    Is insider trading a trumped-up charge? I didn't hear the internet outrage about Enron's CFO being indicted for the same charge.
    - gknoy 13y ago
      If I recall right, the reason it was considered insider trading was that he had published numbers expecting a contract from the government. When he chose to stand up for principles, the contact never landed, which made those predictions false. I'd appreciate a clearer explanation of this, but last time I read about it, it really did seem like the loss of the contract was out of revenge, and that his prosecution would never have happened had he caved to the requests which he felt were unconscionable.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        The problem is he dumped the stock after it became clear (to him) they weren't getting the contracts, but before he told anyone else.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Insider trading by itself is not a trumped up charge - probably none of the charges possible by the US Code are by itself. What makes it trumped up is the particular circumstance - the details of the case. And the details look definitely very fishy.
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    he was recently released.
antocv 13y ago
> A public company would not have been able to make this play, Isnt it funny to hear that a public company would not have been able to do something when it is about something good for its consumers and ultimately its country and citizens, but when it is something extremely bad like compliance, obedience and evilness then they suddenly can and are free to do it. There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. It is like Obama, when it comes to do something good then his hands are tied, when it comes to break laws and shit on constitution to extend mass surveillance or to wage war and drone kill civilians then his hands are not tied. Now, lets hear some more excuses for the way the most successful tech-companies have acted, their hands were tied, they would face huge repercussions, they didnt know better, they only meant to comply with law and so on. The truth is, they dont have democracy in interest, or their consumers best in interest, in fact you as consumer and user for their services and these companies are diametrically opposed and for your best you should consider them enemies.
- misnome 13y ago
  > There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. Try being CEO of Google, Facebook, or Microsoft, and suddenly deciding to close the entire business, and see how far you get before being removed.
  - antocv 13y ago
    There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Lavabit founder finally is allowed to speak about this. It is enough if you threaten to shut down the business to make it known to the G-men that you wont play (the totalitarian) ball. We stopped SOPA/PIPA just with a partial blackout. But these companies didnt make a squeek. They are accomplices.
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      > There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Yeah, but not if it's an empty gesture that doesn't change anything. Any CEO of Google both wouldn't be able to shut it down rather than comply, and would be removed for trying. It would accomplish nothing.

anologwintermut 13y ago

He shouldn't have any "cred" when it comes to security or availability. Maybe with sticking it to the man, but that doesn't a secure service make. The system did serve sider encryption and decryption. Lavabit has, in the past, complied with court orders for data. They have access to the data. This is the fundamental problem with Lavabit. It's rather unclear why they didn't comply with the initial court order in this case which was just for data on Snowden's account, but it's clear they could have complied (though maybe not as quickly as the Fed's wanted) and that they have in the past. So, if you are contemplating using Lavabit II, keep in mind that sooner or latter it will get a lawful court order for data from whatever jurisdiction it's in. Either it will comply with it --- in which case it's street cred is worthless --- or it will refuse with the same apparent "fuck the police" bravado everyone likes , leading to the same set of escalations that happened here. The end of that is either/all of 1) the service failing because of computer seizure/the founder being held in contempt so he can't maintain it 2) Him caving and handing over keys again or 3) him shutting down the service to prevent 2. None of these are good. If the court order is targeted at you, there is a decent chance your data is handed over. If it's not, there is a decent chance your data is still handed over or the service goes under. Oh, and lastly, if your worried about the NSA's dragnet surveillance, they can just hack a foreign server. Don't rely on non-end-to-end secure systems.

jamiesonbecker 13y ago
There are no end-to-end secure systems. So you're typing this on OpenBSD? Sure, because that's secure. Your RPM's are signed, so you're pretty sure they're safe? Or you're using Funtoo or Arch and compiling from source? Have you read all that source? Even if you did, did you UNDERSTAND it all? Are you using an Intel Ivy-Bridge or later processor with RdRand? Are you using a phone? Do you log into your webmail from one or more locations? How about email? Do you trust SSL certificates? which ones? And now... are all of those one other person that you're writing to that actually also uses GPG exercising the same caution? :) I'm just saying... if you want to know that you're not being sniffed, you have to simply make it impossibly expensive to do so, which probably means get on a plane, meet and hand the person a note, and then burn it, and then scatter the ashes to the seven winds. Then worry about the metadata of your flight, time, license plate readers, traffic and surveillance cameras. The basic problem is that allowing this continued, blatant destruction of the 4th Amendment threatens the entire Bill of Rights which ultimately threatens the very foundation of our government and the rule of law. Legal power, jail, and bullets trump crypto.

moxie 13y ago

We should celebrate Ladar for making the decision to put himself at risk in order to protect his users, but I think we should be careful not to forget that Ladar was forced to make that decision because the security of Lavabit was all a total handwave. This wasn't untested water, either. The exact same thing happened to Hushmail for the exact same reason, and should have been evidence enough that the model isn't viable. So I think we should definitely support Ladar as a person, but we also need to be careful not to confuse that with supporting Lavabit, which was a very real danger that should never be repeated again (again).

Dylan16807 13y ago
How was it a handwave if it actually worked? And this is the first time I've heard that Hushmail was forced to betray their users, rather than doing it in response to a simple request. Do you have more information on that?
- socillion 13y ago
  Being legally bound to give up the information is equivalent to being forced. If it wasn't forcible, why did Lavabit have to choose between compliance and shutting down? Could you clarify what you mean by "How was it a handwave if it actually worked?" Lavabit, like Hushmail, has had no problem giving up information to law enforcement in the past.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I think I missed some important things lavabit had done in the past, I concede.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "How was it a handwave if it actually worked?" Ladar claimed that he had no way to access user emails. The hidden subtext of that, which was sort of hand-waved away, was that he had no such access with the code he had written, and that all that stood between your mail and his eyes was his own willingness to write that code. The entire security of Lavabit depends on Ladar and his principles.