5 ms·

There is no hope for us if nothing we hold to be ours is available to any government agent who demands it. A request for a single person is one thing, it only a

There is no hope for us if nothing we hold to be ours is available to any government agent who demands it. A request for a single person is one thing, it only affects that one person. Once the request affects a huge number of unrelated people just to grab that one person it becomes unreasonable. It's like arresting an entire city to catch a single criminal. At some point you have to draw a line. But I wouldn't want to try that argument in front of a Federal Judge much less the Supremes. I doubt this will work.

rayiner 13y ago
Isn't it a technical problem with the service, rather than a legal problem, if the host can't give access to one email account without compromising all users?
- thecodeore 13y ago
  The email encryption was not in play here, from what I understand the end user was the only person with the key to the email "inbox" encryption What is in play here was the SSL Key that is used to encrypt the browser traffic between LB and the user. No differant than the SSL Cert used when you make an online purchase It technologically impossible/impractical to have a separate SSL cert for each user, that is just not how the HTTPS protocall was designed This is not Lavabits doing, that is the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
  - eli 13y ago
    If your landlord only had a master key to all apartments they could use that as a reason to refuse to turn it over for access to one apartment?
    - thecodeore 13y ago
      That is a poor analogy. By turning over the SSL Key the FBI using the Pen Trap Device would capture in real time all data of all users and be decrypting it in real time. Turning over a Master Key to a building would not give the FBI instant access to all apartments simultaneously, nor would they have the ability to go back in time to look at previous data, nor thousands of other problems with this analogy People are attempting to conflate physical keys with encryption keys simply because years ago the mathematicians used the word "keys" as analog to explain things to the general public. This does not mean there is, in reality, any analogous relationship between encryption keys and physical keys
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        They could have instant access if they duplicate the key and raid all apartments simultaneously. Also the legal speak above states I believe that even that the FBI clould technically access other user data, this does not somehow disallow this from happening because is not ideal. It is more a fault of Lava it than anything else.
        thecodeore 13y ago
        How is it the Fault of Lavabit? SSL is a standard secure communication protocol of the internet, it is not lavabits design and it is impossible for Lavabit to modify while still keep interoperability. You do not seem understand the underlying problem, as many people are misinformed as to which key the government was requesting., They WERE NOT asking for the key of the private inbox data, they were asking for the GoDaddy Signed SSL key that encrypts the web browser session from the Lavabit User to the Lavabit server, not the user level key for the encrypted mail box stored on LB servers This is the same protocol that HN uses for this very site, Amazon, Gmail, and thousands of other sites use every day to secure communications between public servers and the users of those servers
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        > SSL is a standard secure communication protocol of the internet, it is not Lavabits design and it is impossible for Lavabit to modify while still keep interoperability. Correct. If Lavabit wanted to be 100% immune from these type of subpoenas, then they would have designed the system to never have been accessible this way. I'm guessing (just like Hushmail) that having a proper end-to-end type encryption, like forcing the users to use some sort of PGP on their end would reduce uptake, thus preventing them from having a viable business model, so they compromised in this way. Just because SSL is a standard etc is irrelevant. The government is going to use its subpoena power to get to the information they have reasonable suspicion is being sheltered by Lavabit. If the least intrusive method unfortunately exposes everyones data, well that really is what they call "tough luck."
        13y ago
  - dingaling 13y ago
    > It technologically impossible/impractical to have a separate SSL cert for each user, that is just not how the HTTPS protocall was designed Not impossible; each paying user[0] could be granted their own subdomain based on username and then an SSL cert issued specific to that domain. What really stands out from reading the unsealed documents is that there was no separation of data and control within Lavabit; Mr Levison argues at one point that handing-over the SSL certs will also expose his administrative commands. Well, tough. Control and data should never flow in the same channel, particularly when handling data for which you have already received and processed warrants in the past. [0] there were only 10,000 users paying for the high-security service. The other 400,000 were on the standard offering, without at-rest encryption.

rayiner 13y ago

Isn't it a technical problem with the service, rather than a legal problem, if the host can't give access to one email account without compromising all users?

thecodeore 13y ago
The email encryption was not in play here, from what I understand the end user was the only person with the key to the email "inbox" encryption What is in play here was the SSL Key that is used to encrypt the browser traffic between LB and the user. No differant than the SSL Cert used when you make an online purchase It technologically impossible/impractical to have a separate SSL cert for each user, that is just not how the HTTPS protocall was designed This is not Lavabits doing, that is the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
- eli 13y ago
  If your landlord only had a master key to all apartments they could use that as a reason to refuse to turn it over for access to one apartment?
  - thecodeore 13y ago
    That is a poor analogy. By turning over the SSL Key the FBI using the Pen Trap Device would capture in real time all data of all users and be decrypting it in real time. Turning over a Master Key to a building would not give the FBI instant access to all apartments simultaneously, nor would they have the ability to go back in time to look at previous data, nor thousands of other problems with this analogy People are attempting to conflate physical keys with encryption keys simply because years ago the mathematicians used the word "keys" as analog to explain things to the general public. This does not mean there is, in reality, any analogous relationship between encryption keys and physical keys
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      They could have instant access if they duplicate the key and raid all apartments simultaneously. Also the legal speak above states I believe that even that the FBI clould technically access other user data, this does not somehow disallow this from happening because is not ideal. It is more a fault of Lava it than anything else.
      - thecodeore 13y ago
        How is it the Fault of Lavabit? SSL is a standard secure communication protocol of the internet, it is not lavabits design and it is impossible for Lavabit to modify while still keep interoperability. You do not seem understand the underlying problem, as many people are misinformed as to which key the government was requesting., They WERE NOT asking for the key of the private inbox data, they were asking for the GoDaddy Signed SSL key that encrypts the web browser session from the Lavabit User to the Lavabit server, not the user level key for the encrypted mail box stored on LB servers This is the same protocol that HN uses for this very site, Amazon, Gmail, and thousands of other sites use every day to secure communications between public servers and the users of those servers
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        > SSL is a standard secure communication protocol of the internet, it is not Lavabits design and it is impossible for Lavabit to modify while still keep interoperability. Correct. If Lavabit wanted to be 100% immune from these type of subpoenas, then they would have designed the system to never have been accessible this way. I'm guessing (just like Hushmail) that having a proper end-to-end type encryption, like forcing the users to use some sort of PGP on their end would reduce uptake, thus preventing them from having a viable business model, so they compromised in this way. Just because SSL is a standard etc is irrelevant. The government is going to use its subpoena power to get to the information they have reasonable suspicion is being sheltered by Lavabit. If the least intrusive method unfortunately exposes everyones data, well that really is what they call "tough luck."
        13y ago
- dingaling 13y ago
  > It technologically impossible/impractical to have a separate SSL cert for each user, that is just not how the HTTPS protocall was designed Not impossible; each paying user[0] could be granted their own subdomain based on username and then an SSL cert issued specific to that domain. What really stands out from reading the unsealed documents is that there was no separation of data and control within Lavabit; Mr Levison argues at one point that handing-over the SSL certs will also expose his administrative commands. Well, tough. Control and data should never flow in the same channel, particularly when handling data for which you have already received and processed warrants in the past. [0] there were only 10,000 users paying for the high-security service. The other 400,000 were on the standard offering, without at-rest encryption.