4 ms·

He mentioned this in an interview with CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57597954-83/lavabit-chief-predicts-long-fight-with-feds-q-a/ http://news.cnet.com

He mentioned this in an interview with CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57597954-83/lavabit-chief-predicts-long-fight-with-feds-q-a/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57597954-83/lavabit-chief-p... "What happens to your customer's e-mails and data? Levison: I'm looking into setting up a site where users can download their data and set up a forwarding [e-mail] address, but that may take a week or two to set up. That's all I can do until I feel confident that I can resume the service without having to compromise its integrity. I will make it clear that I don't plan to use any encryption for that site. [People] should only use it if they feel comfortable with the information being intercepted. And yes, I do plan to have that disclaimer on the site. Unfortunately, what's become clear is that there's no protections in our current body of law to keep the government from compelling us to provide the information necessary to decrypt those communications in secret. I'm still looking at seeing if that's even logistically feasible -- there's half a billion messages [sent in the 10 years Lavabit operated]. By shutting down the service, I will be losing the infrastructure that I used to support all those people. There's stuff that I can't share with my own lawyer. This is going to be a long fight."

spc476 13y ago
"There's stuff that I can't share with my own lawyer." That right there says to me that he can bring that issue up as a violation of his Constitutional rights (Amendment VI---"and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."). It's insane that he can't talk to his lawyers.
- eli 13y ago
  Who said he's the defendant?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    If he cannot talk with a lawyer, how can he even be sure that he isn't a defendant? Is he suppose to learn law himself? How can he even know if such a restriction is even legal and enforceable, if he cannot talk with a lawyer? How can he challenge their questionable interpretation of whatever laws may make this legal, if he cannot talk with a lawyer? How can he be sure that, by complying with whatever requests they make, he isn't inadvertently committing crimes that he can later be charged for? Nobody should ever be forbidden from consulting a lawyer, particularly when dealing with other lawyers. These gag orders are a minefields designed to dismember anyone who finds themselves in them; they have absolutely no place in a free society.
- n09n 13y ago
  Or is he just deliberately choosing to misinterpret ambiguous language to mean he can't talk to his lawyers in order to make the government look bad? This is the same man that printed out his key in 4 point font when presented with a court order.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > misinterpret ambiguous language If only a lawyer could clear that up for him. ...oh wait.
  - indrax 13y ago
    He's not the only one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v._Ashcroft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v.... >In his ruling Judge Marrero wrote "All but the most mettlesome and undaunted NSL recipients would consider themselves effectively barred from consulting an attorney or anyone else who might advise them otherwise," and concluded, "as well as bound to absolute silence about the existence of the NSL...For the reasonable NSL recipient confronted with the NSL's mandatory language and the FBI's conduct related to the NSL, resistance is not a viable option."[22] Frankly, your words seem more like propaganda than his.

spc476 13y ago

"There's stuff that I can't share with my own lawyer." That right there says to me that he can bring that issue up as a violation of his Constitutional rights (Amendment VI---"and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."). It's insane that he can't talk to his lawyers.

eli 13y ago
Who said he's the defendant?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If he cannot talk with a lawyer, how can he even be sure that he isn't a defendant? Is he suppose to learn law himself? How can he even know if such a restriction is even legal and enforceable, if he cannot talk with a lawyer? How can he challenge their questionable interpretation of whatever laws may make this legal, if he cannot talk with a lawyer? How can he be sure that, by complying with whatever requests they make, he isn't inadvertently committing crimes that he can later be charged for? Nobody should ever be forbidden from consulting a lawyer, particularly when dealing with other lawyers. These gag orders are a minefields designed to dismember anyone who finds themselves in them; they have absolutely no place in a free society.
n09n 13y ago
Or is he just deliberately choosing to misinterpret ambiguous language to mean he can't talk to his lawyers in order to make the government look bad? This is the same man that printed out his key in 4 point font when presented with a court order.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > misinterpret ambiguous language If only a lawyer could clear that up for him. ...oh wait.
- indrax 13y ago
  He's not the only one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v._Ashcroft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v.... >In his ruling Judge Marrero wrote "All but the most mettlesome and undaunted NSL recipients would consider themselves effectively barred from consulting an attorney or anyone else who might advise them otherwise," and concluded, "as well as bound to absolute silence about the existence of the NSL...For the reasonable NSL recipient confronted with the NSL's mandatory language and the FBI's conduct related to the NSL, resistance is not a viable option."[22] Frankly, your words seem more like propaganda than his.