3 ms·

> My company, Lavabit, provided email services to 410,000 people – including Edward Snowden, according to news reports – [...]. Does he write "according to new

by pdknsk 12y ago

> My company, Lavabit, provided email services to 410,000 people – including Edward Snowden, according to news reports – [...]. Does he write "according to news reports" for legal reasons? Obviously he should know, I think. > The government argued that, since the "inspection" of the data was to be carried out by a machine, they were exempt from the normal search-and-seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. That's insane.

innoying 12y ago
Plausible deniability.
mpyne 12y ago
> > The government argued that, since the "inspection" of the data was to be carried out by a machine, they were exempt from the normal search-and-seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. > That's insane. It's also immaterial. In this case DOJ got an Article III warrant (if not several), which was specific in what was to be seized. This is the system that Snowden claimed to be trying to defend by revealing "warrantless wiretapping" working exactly as designed. DOJ got a warrant for the exact thing they wanted, and all of sudden Constitutional separation of powers became inconvenient to Levison (even though he complied with such warrants before, and eventually offered to comply in this case for cash).
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Still interesting to see how they think about it.
dredmorbius 12y ago
He may not have known. It's quite possible for a company to provide services to customers it can't explicitly identify. Rather common, in fact. Levison might still be gagged from disclosing certain information he knows personally or which was disclosed by government requests for data. In which case, pointing to an external source of verification could provide him with legal cover. Consider it the equivalent, if you will, of parallel construction. Knowledge acquired via one route cannot be disclosed unless you can point to an independent path to coming by that information. Though the nondisclosable means might inform your search for unencumbered sources.

by pdknsk 12y ago

innoying 12y ago

Plausible deniability.

mpyne 12y ago

> > The government argued that, since the "inspection" of the data was to be carried out by a machine, they were exempt from the normal search-and-seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. > That's insane. It's also immaterial. In this case DOJ got an Article III warrant (if not several), which was specific in what was to be seized. This is the system that Snowden claimed to be trying to defend by revealing "warrantless wiretapping" working exactly as designed. DOJ got a warrant for the exact thing they wanted, and all of sudden Constitutional separation of powers became inconvenient to Levison (even though he complied with such warrants before, and eventually offered to comply in this case for cash).

higherpurpose 12y ago
Still interesting to see how they think about it.

dredmorbius 12y ago

He may not have known. It's quite possible for a company to provide services to customers it can't explicitly identify. Rather common, in fact. Levison might still be gagged from disclosing certain information he knows personally or which was disclosed by government requests for data. In which case, pointing to an external source of verification could provide him with legal cover. Consider it the equivalent, if you will, of parallel construction. Knowledge acquired via one route cannot be disclosed unless you can point to an independent path to coming by that information. Though the nondisclosable means might inform your search for unencumbered sources.