5 ms·

I'm actually working with some pretty kickass legal people on v2. Can you say who they are? I'm looking for legal advice in this area as well (and I'm not a co

I'm actually working with some pretty kickass legal people on v2. Can you say who they are? I'm looking for legal advice in this area as well (and I'm not a competitor to CrytoSeal in any way). Our service is currently in Australia (only), but I'm an owner, based in the US, and by design we also aren't able to support a pen trap order without the same problems you've encountered. It's sucks when crypto best-practices are, effectively, either illegal or useless.

rdl 13y ago
Law students and their professors; I don't think my "bro deal" with them is transferable, sadly. (we're trying to get law review and/or conference papers out of it, too) The whole thing is quite unsettled right now, and unique to every case. I'd probably contact EFF. If I were looking for someone to pay, Marcia Hofmann is now a commercial option, and she's probably the best in the world.
- agwa 13y ago
  Please consider also looking for a criminal defense attorney with significant experience defending people in federal court. When it hits the fan and you get a court order and are being threatened by federal prosecutors, lawprofs don't do you much good. You need someone who has experience fighting back. Here's a criminal defense attorney who makes the case for this better than I could: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-really-bad-call/ http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-re... http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/08/31/why-hackers-dont-win-too-often/ http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/08/31/why-hackers-dont-win...
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Ouch. The first post seems especially unfair. ...they are screwing up the world for the rest of us, for everyone.. Choices being made by the tech-savvy and law ignorant are creating the precedents, while destroying themselves, that form the foundation for computer law going forward. We may be saddled with bad law for decades... The point seems to be: when a random computer person provides a service, and that service is targeted by federal prosecutors, and idiotic judges use the opportunity to cripple civil society, it's the random computer person's fault. Are lawyers and judges simply vengeful automatons, whom any citizen should expect to destroy civilization if given any opportunity? Maybe others in the jurisprudential profession could help defend society from their colleagues?
    - agwa 13y ago
      You've missed the point big time. They screw things up when they pick inexperienced lawyers whose inexperience costs them their cases. If they pick experienced lawyers who lose despite their experience, then no one is blaming them. The context is important here: Levison was initially defended by a small business lawyer who was only 4 years out of law school. That was truly a boneheaded decision and may very well be why Lavabit crumbled so quickly.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        Well sure I see that point: one should hire good attorneys. If one cannot afford good attorneys, one is boned. That doesn't seem profound. (Not particularly just either, but whatever.) My previous comment was thinking more generally. Society has in the past successfully weathered innovations in technology and commerce without the legal profession running amok. Often innovators were not "connected" enough to hire the best legal representation, if they did so at all. What's different this time?
        agwa 13y ago
        > Well sure I see that point: one should hire good attorneys. If one cannot afford good attorneys, one is boned. That doesn't seem profound. (Not particularly just either, but whatever.) The author addressed this ad nauseam in the comments. In particular, see: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-really-bad-call/#comment-84105 http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-re... > My previous comment was thinking more generally. Society has in the past successfully weathered innovations in technology and commerce without the legal profession running amok. Often innovators were not "connected" enough to hire the best legal representation, if they did so at all. What's different this time? I don't think technological innovation has ever had the potential to disrupt existing power structures as much as the Internet and cryptography. I'm not sure what you mean by "legal profession running amok," but if you mean bad court decisions and draconian government legal theories, that's nothing new. We're only starting to see this in the context of technology because of the aforementioned clash between technology and government power.

rdl 13y ago

Law students and their professors; I don't think my "bro deal" with them is transferable, sadly. (we're trying to get law review and/or conference papers out of it, too) The whole thing is quite unsettled right now, and unique to every case. I'd probably contact EFF. If I were looking for someone to pay, Marcia Hofmann is now a commercial option, and she's probably the best in the world.

agwa 13y ago
Please consider also looking for a criminal defense attorney with significant experience defending people in federal court. When it hits the fan and you get a court order and are being threatened by federal prosecutors, lawprofs don't do you much good. You need someone who has experience fighting back. Here's a criminal defense attorney who makes the case for this better than I could: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-really-bad-call/ http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-re... http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/08/31/why-hackers-dont-win-too-often/ http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/08/31/why-hackers-dont-win...
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Ouch. The first post seems especially unfair. ...they are screwing up the world for the rest of us, for everyone.. Choices being made by the tech-savvy and law ignorant are creating the precedents, while destroying themselves, that form the foundation for computer law going forward. We may be saddled with bad law for decades... The point seems to be: when a random computer person provides a service, and that service is targeted by federal prosecutors, and idiotic judges use the opportunity to cripple civil society, it's the random computer person's fault. Are lawyers and judges simply vengeful automatons, whom any citizen should expect to destroy civilization if given any opportunity? Maybe others in the jurisprudential profession could help defend society from their colleagues?
  - agwa 13y ago
    You've missed the point big time. They screw things up when they pick inexperienced lawyers whose inexperience costs them their cases. If they pick experienced lawyers who lose despite their experience, then no one is blaming them. The context is important here: Levison was initially defended by a small business lawyer who was only 4 years out of law school. That was truly a boneheaded decision and may very well be why Lavabit crumbled so quickly.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Well sure I see that point: one should hire good attorneys. If one cannot afford good attorneys, one is boned. That doesn't seem profound. (Not particularly just either, but whatever.) My previous comment was thinking more generally. Society has in the past successfully weathered innovations in technology and commerce without the legal profession running amok. Often innovators were not "connected" enough to hire the best legal representation, if they did so at all. What's different this time?
      - agwa 13y ago
        > Well sure I see that point: one should hire good attorneys. If one cannot afford good attorneys, one is boned. That doesn't seem profound. (Not particularly just either, but whatever.) The author addressed this ad nauseam in the comments. In particular, see: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-really-bad-call/#comment-84105 http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/10/03/lavabits-levisons-re... > My previous comment was thinking more generally. Society has in the past successfully weathered innovations in technology and commerce without the legal profession running amok. Often innovators were not "connected" enough to hire the best legal representation, if they did so at all. What's different this time? I don't think technological innovation has ever had the potential to disrupt existing power structures as much as the Internet and cryptography. I'm not sure what you mean by "legal profession running amok," but if you mean bad court decisions and draconian government legal theories, that's nothing new. We're only starting to see this in the context of technology because of the aforementioned clash between technology and government power.