4 ms·

(commenting as I read along) pg. 11 - Certification of Business Records Thought he was being asked to install trap/trace/whatever by the govt alongside his equ

by MWil 13y ago

(commenting as I read along) pg. 11 - Certification of Business Records Thought he was being asked to install trap/trace/whatever by the govt alongside his equipment - might explain why this wasn't filled out/signed. It's not part of his regular business to record all such information.

MWil 13y ago
pg. 76 contains the best argument IMO - no discretion being left to the FBI to ONLY retain header/contact details for Snowden's email and not take the keys to the kingdom
MWil 13y ago
Sure enough, trap/trace was ordered 18 days after the govt's initial application was approved by the Court
- MWil 13y ago
  Historical note: Same federal magistrate that approved trap/trace approved subpoena for Twitter records in Wikileaks investigation in '11
- MWil 13y ago
  Related to the Lavabit case (but more generally) I've been working on researching warrant canaries. Order contains language "minimum interference to the services that are accorded persons with respect to whom the installation and use is to take place." Possible canary-busting language as well as NSL-like "shall not disclose trap/trace or investigation" language
- MWil 13y ago
  pg. 30 contains what sounds like a much too broad request for any and all public and private keys for ALL lavabit users including HTTPS sessions and SMTP communications, not just Snowden Actual search warrant is much more narrow to just Snowden, although missing the date before which the warrant must be executed Served in TX on a Thursday to show up for court the next Tuesday AM in VA - gotta love that prep time!
  - dalke 13y ago
    When it actually get to court, the judge emphasizes that only information about a specific account is needed. The judge on p115 or so emphasizes that the government can ask for that information, and it doesn't matter if it's easy or hard to access. The judge on p50, says that encryption keys must be provided in order to make sense of the legally obligated pen register data. Levinson, on p51, brought the keys with him (as you mentioned, on p30), but Levinson, on p52 points out ... well, I'm not sure. I think it's that the keys in the subpoena don't actually exist? Levinson is willing to make the pen register available, for a development fee of about $2,000 (p90). (Note: Verizon charges about $700 for 60 days of a pen trap; see https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltrackingpra_irvine7_irvineca.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltr... . I don't find the $2,000 to be unreasonable by comparison.) The government says that paying development costs has never been done before (to the lawyer's understanding), and doesn't want to do so. (p116). On p 115, the judge says that ease or difficulty doesn't play a role on if the government is lawfully entitled to the information. (I wonder then how Verizon can charge for it.) Levinson, btw, wants to provide the data in a lump data dump, after 60 days of recording (p90). More frequent updates will cost another $1,500. The government, on the other hand, demands real-time data, and wants to install a real-time device which captures all metadata, which is then filtered so that agents only receive what's in the pen order (p121). This requires the full SSL keys. The judge agrees with the government that this is reasonable. (line 18, p121). Previously (p56), Levinson asked the court if it was possible to do an audit of the pen register. The judge responded that any request for extra monitoring would be denied. BTW, Appendix A shows a copy of the infamous SSL key as 4pt font.
    - arca_vorago 13y ago
      These are the key points to me. "The government, on the other hand, demands real-time data, and wants to install a real-time device which captures all metadata, which is then filtered so that agents only receive what's in the pen order (p121). This requires the full SSL keys. The judge agrees with the government that this is reasonable. (line 18, p121). Previously (p56), Levinson asked the court if it was possible to do an audit of the pen register. The judge responded that any request for extra monitoring would be denied." Who knows what all these little black boxes do? Just because they say it will only transmit what is in the order, how can one know otherwise? Hence the request for audit, which is denied... very, very suspicious.
- MWil 13y ago
  His lawyer quit or was fired the day after a conference call on July 10 with FBI about the extent of trap/trace - 5 days before next court date
MWil 13y ago
pg. 42 - Levison asks to be paid $3500 to gather data himself and relay to FBI after 60 days Govt declines b/c trap/trace is real-time and they find the amount requested to not be reasonable
- ps4fanboy 13y ago
  It would be interesting to see what their pen/trap device costs to install, I would guess far greater than $3500 if I know anything about government spending.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Verizon would charge $700 for the equivalent phone information. See p4141 of https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltrackingpra_irvine7_irvineca.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltr... .
    - lightbritefight 13y ago
      The difference is that Verizon already had this code built, and charged $700/request to use it. The Lavabit founder was asking for money to develop and modify his code. Even if it was his code, there is no "standard" amount for this service, so the government balking about it seems a bit disingenuous. It seems like they were annoyed they got push back to begin with, then did a heavy handed overeach to get the ssl keys because they knew the judge was friendly to their point of view. He may have done if they agreed, but then again, maybe not. A lot of his responses seem like stalls in order to decided what to do.
      - dalke 13y ago
        In my reading, I get the same feeling of being disingenuous. The 4pt SSL key emphasizes that. My best interpretation is that he had already decided that the only solution was to shut the company down - which I'm certain the government wasn't expecting - and given that he was likely to fail was using delay tactics. However, my interpretation fails because he said he would do the tap if the government paid him enough money. (OTOH, he could have decided to shut it down in that case as well.)
MWil 13y ago
Free speech arguments begin on pg. 61

by MWil 13y ago

MWil 13y ago

pg. 76 contains the best argument IMO - no discretion being left to the FBI to ONLY retain header/contact details for Snowden's email and not take the keys to the kingdom

MWil 13y ago

Sure enough, trap/trace was ordered 18 days after the govt's initial application was approved by the Court

MWil 13y ago
Historical note: Same federal magistrate that approved trap/trace approved subpoena for Twitter records in Wikileaks investigation in '11
MWil 13y ago
Related to the Lavabit case (but more generally) I've been working on researching warrant canaries. Order contains language "minimum interference to the services that are accorded persons with respect to whom the installation and use is to take place." Possible canary-busting language as well as NSL-like "shall not disclose trap/trace or investigation" language
MWil 13y ago
pg. 30 contains what sounds like a much too broad request for any and all public and private keys for ALL lavabit users including HTTPS sessions and SMTP communications, not just Snowden Actual search warrant is much more narrow to just Snowden, although missing the date before which the warrant must be executed Served in TX on a Thursday to show up for court the next Tuesday AM in VA - gotta love that prep time!
- dalke 13y ago
  When it actually get to court, the judge emphasizes that only information about a specific account is needed. The judge on p115 or so emphasizes that the government can ask for that information, and it doesn't matter if it's easy or hard to access. The judge on p50, says that encryption keys must be provided in order to make sense of the legally obligated pen register data. Levinson, on p51, brought the keys with him (as you mentioned, on p30), but Levinson, on p52 points out ... well, I'm not sure. I think it's that the keys in the subpoena don't actually exist? Levinson is willing to make the pen register available, for a development fee of about $2,000 (p90). (Note: Verizon charges about $700 for 60 days of a pen trap; see https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltrackingpra_irvine7_irvineca.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltr... . I don't find the $2,000 to be unreasonable by comparison.) The government says that paying development costs has never been done before (to the lawyer's understanding), and doesn't want to do so. (p116). On p 115, the judge says that ease or difficulty doesn't play a role on if the government is lawfully entitled to the information. (I wonder then how Verizon can charge for it.) Levinson, btw, wants to provide the data in a lump data dump, after 60 days of recording (p90). More frequent updates will cost another $1,500. The government, on the other hand, demands real-time data, and wants to install a real-time device which captures all metadata, which is then filtered so that agents only receive what's in the pen order (p121). This requires the full SSL keys. The judge agrees with the government that this is reasonable. (line 18, p121). Previously (p56), Levinson asked the court if it was possible to do an audit of the pen register. The judge responded that any request for extra monitoring would be denied. BTW, Appendix A shows a copy of the infamous SSL key as 4pt font.
  - arca_vorago 13y ago
    These are the key points to me. "The government, on the other hand, demands real-time data, and wants to install a real-time device which captures all metadata, which is then filtered so that agents only receive what's in the pen order (p121). This requires the full SSL keys. The judge agrees with the government that this is reasonable. (line 18, p121). Previously (p56), Levinson asked the court if it was possible to do an audit of the pen register. The judge responded that any request for extra monitoring would be denied." Who knows what all these little black boxes do? Just because they say it will only transmit what is in the order, how can one know otherwise? Hence the request for audit, which is denied... very, very suspicious.
MWil 13y ago
His lawyer quit or was fired the day after a conference call on July 10 with FBI about the extent of trap/trace - 5 days before next court date

MWil 13y ago

pg. 42 - Levison asks to be paid $3500 to gather data himself and relay to FBI after 60 days Govt declines b/c trap/trace is real-time and they find the amount requested to not be reasonable

ps4fanboy 13y ago
It would be interesting to see what their pen/trap device costs to install, I would guess far greater than $3500 if I know anything about government spending.
- dalke 13y ago
  Verizon would charge $700 for the equivalent phone information. See p4141 of https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltrackingpra_irvine7_irvineca.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/cellphonetracking/20120328/celltr... .
  - lightbritefight 13y ago
    The difference is that Verizon already had this code built, and charged $700/request to use it. The Lavabit founder was asking for money to develop and modify his code. Even if it was his code, there is no "standard" amount for this service, so the government balking about it seems a bit disingenuous. It seems like they were annoyed they got push back to begin with, then did a heavy handed overeach to get the ssl keys because they knew the judge was friendly to their point of view. He may have done if they agreed, but then again, maybe not. A lot of his responses seem like stalls in order to decided what to do.
    - dalke 13y ago
      In my reading, I get the same feeling of being disingenuous. The 4pt SSL key emphasizes that. My best interpretation is that he had already decided that the only solution was to shut the company down - which I'm certain the government wasn't expecting - and given that he was likely to fail was using delay tactics. However, my interpretation fails because he said he would do the tap if the government paid him enough money. (OTOH, he could have decided to shut it down in that case as well.)

MWil 13y ago

Free speech arguments begin on pg. 61