4 ms·

Pity is, 'lawyers' say that, we all agree on it BUT, and this is the big BUT, as longs as the secret 'court' thinks otherwise, we are completely helpless. If (

Pity is, 'lawyers' say that, we all agree on it BUT, and this is the big BUT, as longs as the secret 'court' thinks otherwise, we are completely helpless. If (another big IF) this case goes to the SCOTUS and they (after quite a bit of money) they support Ladar and all of us, then you can take it for granted that a new 'decision' will take place in a secret 'court' which 'reinterprets' the facts.

option_greek 13y ago
In this whole episode the judge came out as a complete loon when it comes to technology with power to trash any privacy expectations. I don't understand why he was so eager to do what he did (fining $5k per day ? what kind of a joke is that..).
danielweber 13y ago
It's really depressing how people on HN keep on bringing up "secret 'court'" in cases where it is 100% irrelevant. It's like the facts don't matter, only feelings.
davorak 13y ago
Ok what do you do after that secret court? Is there another higher secret court or would the next step be the supreme court?
csandreasen 13y ago
There is no secret court involved in this case. The initial case was overseen by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and is currently in appeals at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals [1]. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has no part in this decision. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
twoodfin 13y ago
We don't all agree. I find Orin Kerr's arguments linked by mjn quite persuasive. Do you think Kerr is wrong, or that the legal precedent is? How did you get the impression a "secret" court was involved?
walshemj 13y ago
"lawyers think" what ever they are being paid to think by their clients - we need to stop reporting lawyers statements as if its a fact like Ohm's law
- fleitz 13y ago
  They are reporting the fact that his lawyer made this claim, it's expected that people have basic reading comprehension. Discerning the difference in meaning between "Demands on Lavabit violated Fourth Amendment, lawyers say" and "Demands on Lavabit violated Fourth Amendment" is not an onerous task. Even the headline makes it clear.
deelowe 13y ago
The secret court that issues FISA orders has nothing to do with this case.
pfortuny 13y ago
After all the comments, I have realized I may have jumped the gun. Yes, possibly. It was a bit of an hectic morning and then I read this with the wrong mindset and so on... Thanks for the feedback.

option_greek 13y ago

In this whole episode the judge came out as a complete loon when it comes to technology with power to trash any privacy expectations. I don't understand why he was so eager to do what he did (fining $5k per day ? what kind of a joke is that..).

danielweber 13y ago

It's really depressing how people on HN keep on bringing up "secret 'court'" in cases where it is 100% irrelevant. It's like the facts don't matter, only feelings.

davorak 13y ago

Ok what do you do after that secret court? Is there another higher secret court or would the next step be the supreme court?

csandreasen 13y ago

There is no secret court involved in this case. The initial case was overseen by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and is currently in appeals at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals [1]. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has no part in this decision. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

twoodfin 13y ago

We don't all agree. I find Orin Kerr's arguments linked by mjn quite persuasive. Do you think Kerr is wrong, or that the legal precedent is? How did you get the impression a "secret" court was involved?

walshemj 13y ago

"lawyers think" what ever they are being paid to think by their clients - we need to stop reporting lawyers statements as if its a fact like Ohm's law

fleitz 13y ago
They are reporting the fact that his lawyer made this claim, it's expected that people have basic reading comprehension. Discerning the difference in meaning between "Demands on Lavabit violated Fourth Amendment, lawyers say" and "Demands on Lavabit violated Fourth Amendment" is not an onerous task. Even the headline makes it clear.

deelowe 13y ago

The secret court that issues FISA orders has nothing to do with this case.

pfortuny 13y ago

After all the comments, I have realized I may have jumped the gun. Yes, possibly. It was a bit of an hectic morning and then I read this with the wrong mindset and so on... Thanks for the feedback.