4 ms·
Can this be classified as - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice ? That is, I'm sure he unde
by powertower 13y ago
Can this be classified as -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice ?
That is, I'm sure he understands that this action might be interfering with an investigation, and that it's reasonable to believe it was a willful act on his part.
Can you get into trouble for doing something like this?
- koudi 13y agoNo. This does not affect their ability to use it. This certificate is simply no longer trusted by other parties (rightfully, because it was compromised). As matter of fact, this may not even be his doing.
- powertower 13y agoWhat if the 3rd party the FBI wanted to intercept via this Cert has now been 1) notified that there is a problem and 2) can no longer be intercepted (unless their browser does no CRL or OCSP checks on the domain's cert)?
- koudi 13y agoInteresting point. AFAIK they requested the key to decrypt previous communications. From security point of view, his move makes perfect sense. If FBI wanted to decrypt future communications, they would probably have specified that in their request. Then he would indeed break court order and could be hold responsible. On the other hand, it would be hard to prove any actual obstruction, since the service was shut down and all users notified about this whole situation.
- orblivion 13y agoWho would make future secure communications with Lavabit at this point? Certainly not Edward Snowden.
- chris_mahan 13y agoFollowing that line of reasoning down the slimy slippery slope, developing better encryption systems could be construed as obstruction of justice, no?
- powertower 13y agoNo.
- shocks 13y agoThis is exactly the point he was trying to make...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- powertower 13y agoHow can you be so sure?
- chris_mahan 13y agoNo, that's not the point I was trying to make. The people in Washington D.C. that sit in fancy leather chairs have repeatedly demonstrated their lack of critical thinking skills, so I use terribly bad sarcasm to illustrate what their puny brains will think of next.
- shmerl 13y agoWhen did unconstitutional massive surveillance become justice?
- notdonspaulding 13y agoThe same day that everyone agreed "Roadside Safety Checks" (police looking for drunk drivers under the auspices of checking children's carseats at 1AM) was the lesser of two evils (Drunk drivers killing innocent people is a greater evil than everyone's 4th amendment rights being violated). To a lesser extent, anytime that politicians frame an issue with the two phrases "it's for the good of the public" and "it's not a problem if you aren't guilty", they're generally trouncing a constitutional right, or greasing the tracks for it to inevitably happen.
- sixothree 13y agoI'm hoping driverless cars begin to make people realize how intrusive these types of stops really are.
- interstitial 13y agoWhen it comes to public safety, the American people stand ready for intrusions of all kinds, it is truly for our own good. Government agents are privy to secret information unknown to the public, therefore we have no choice but to submit.
- shmerl 13y agoThat's an excuse which can be abused for anything up to making a police state. It's all about how far is acceptable. Surely not "all kinds".
- MustBeAShill 13y agoWhat does massive surveillance have to do with the Lavabit action?