4 ms·

> 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 j

by 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
I get permission denied on every page on that site.
jessaustin 13y ago
I don't think technological innovation has ever had the potential to disrupt existing power structures as much as the Internet and cryptography. That's a bold statement. You don't think the cotton gin and improved looms contributed to the numbers of people enslaved in the antebellum southern USA? You don't think the railroads and telegraph contributed to the settling of the West? You don't think the rise of manufacturing, which pulled multitudes of (black and white) Southerners north, changed both the South and the Midwest? 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. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not comparing Lavabit to Dred Scott in terms of the degree of injustice the two parties suffered. Mostly I just don't know a great deal of legal history and this historical "worst case ever" is what came to mind. However, I have never seen the unfortunate Mr. Scott blamed for the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. So, bad court decisions: not new. Blaming the victims of those decisions: new. Mostly it just speaks to an audacious sense of entitlement on the part of any attorney who upon news of a fresh new legal outrage, immediately excoriates the victims of our federal Department of Injustice. When he says a society without Lavabit is better than a society in which Lavabit doesn't have him (or a similarly experienced and wise litigator) on retainer, that is self-serving. He is fundamentally no different than the feds, because he also wants the legal profession to act as a check on all innovation. The slight cosmetic difference is that he wants to be the one running things, because his judgment is better than that of the feds. Of course we mustn't fall victim to the classic is/ought confusion. When in legal trouble, it's best to be well-represented. However, when any developer who wants to help people maintain a modicum of privacy and dignity is automatically in legal trouble, we all have legal trouble.

by agwa 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

I get permission denied on every page on that site.

jessaustin 13y ago

I don't think technological innovation has ever had the potential to disrupt existing power structures as much as the Internet and cryptography. That's a bold statement. You don't think the cotton gin and improved looms contributed to the numbers of people enslaved in the antebellum southern USA? You don't think the railroads and telegraph contributed to the settling of the West? You don't think the rise of manufacturing, which pulled multitudes of (black and white) Southerners north, changed both the South and the Midwest? 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. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not comparing Lavabit to Dred Scott in terms of the degree of injustice the two parties suffered. Mostly I just don't know a great deal of legal history and this historical "worst case ever" is what came to mind. However, I have never seen the unfortunate Mr. Scott blamed for the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. So, bad court decisions: not new. Blaming the victims of those decisions: new. Mostly it just speaks to an audacious sense of entitlement on the part of any attorney who upon news of a fresh new legal outrage, immediately excoriates the victims of our federal Department of Injustice. When he says a society without Lavabit is better than a society in which Lavabit doesn't have him (or a similarly experienced and wise litigator) on retainer, that is self-serving. He is fundamentally no different than the feds, because he also wants the legal profession to act as a check on all innovation. The slight cosmetic difference is that he wants to be the one running things, because his judgment is better than that of the feds. Of course we mustn't fall victim to the classic is/ought confusion. When in legal trouble, it's best to be well-represented. However, when any developer who wants to help people maintain a modicum of privacy and dignity is automatically in legal trouble, we all have legal trouble.