5 ms·

Well one could argue that when 'an ordinary guy' running a startup gets threatened and raped by the biggest (evil) 3 letter agencies, it might be quite normal t

Well one could argue that when 'an ordinary guy' running a startup gets threatened and raped by the biggest (evil) 3 letter agencies, it might be quite normal to have 'flaws in your response'. I personally think he did remarkably well.

akerl_ 12y ago
Stonewalling the DoJ when they're serving you a legal request is pretty much the opposite of handling things well, and as noted it ensured things went poorly for pretty much every party except Levison, who has been enjoying a media field day ever since as a Defender Of Freedom And Goodness. Providing the key in 4 point font was yet another childish response that predictably did not help with resolving the situation. If he disagreed with the nature of the government's request, there are a variety of ways to voice and display that disagreement: locking your doors and closing the curtains in the hope the DoJ stops knocking is not one of them. But given he had a history of complying with this nature of request, I'm curious why he suddenly changed his mind.
- josefresco 12y ago
  "Stonewalling the DOJ" Do you mean preparing your defense? Sure is easy for the DOJ to prepare their case ahead of time with seemingly unlimited assets and then demand a response to an unknowing and single party.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    What defense? They didn't charge him with anything until after the stonewalling. They sent him a warrant and requested that he comply, just as he'd done with all the previous warrants.
    - josefresco 12y ago
      I dunno... do you need to be officially charged with something to prepare an adequate defense?
- wooter 12y ago
  You're an apologist of the worst kind. If the government isn't playing by its own rules, I see no reason to play by them. If stonewalling - which I do NOT concede that he did - helped Snowden get away, that's a victory for the people. Also "Defender Of Freedom And Goodness," really? He gave up more than most of us for a cause that is equally important to all. Whether intentional or not, you're coming off as a pompous, condescending ass.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If he's an apologist, I'm pretty sure it's not of "the worst kind".
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    I'm mostly just sad because he took what would have been an excellent opportunity to actually Fight The Man and instead made a couple gestures to spite them. Printing out the key on 4pt font, delaying to "[help] Snowden get away", and presenting them with absurd terms did not advance any cause, they were just ways to piss of the DoJ. If he's given up more than us, I wish he'd at least taken actions that had a modest chance of leading to changes in the law or the application of it.
    - josefresco 12y ago
      One man's "absurd terms" is another man's "proper defense". It's pretty common in a court battle for one side to ask for the moon with the full expectation that the other side will counter. If you don't make "absurd terms" then your "reasonable terms" might not happen either.
  - dang 12y ago
    > You're an apologist of the worst kind. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
jackowayed 12y ago
Let's save the word rape for literal rape.
- njharman 12y ago
  Why? Other words are not given such extreme consideration.
- angersock 12y ago
  Likely derived from the Latin "rapio", which can also mean seize or carry off ( http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=rapio http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=rapio ). So, erm, seems reasonable, actually.
  - afarrell 12y ago
    The meaning of a word used 1600 years ago in a society with a different culture and legal system does not change the plain meaning of a commonly-used word in English that has a specific meaning.
    - angersock 12y ago
      That word has, for better or worse, accrued additional, slightly less repugnant meanings--meanings which are commonly-used. Additionally, it does very much make sense to use that word (repugnant meanings and all!) to underscore the powerlessness of those going up against the State in our modern legal system. Hell, if you end up in the pen because of the aforementioned proceedings, you may end up using the original word anyways.

akerl_ 12y ago

Stonewalling the DoJ when they're serving you a legal request is pretty much the opposite of handling things well, and as noted it ensured things went poorly for pretty much every party except Levison, who has been enjoying a media field day ever since as a Defender Of Freedom And Goodness. Providing the key in 4 point font was yet another childish response that predictably did not help with resolving the situation. If he disagreed with the nature of the government's request, there are a variety of ways to voice and display that disagreement: locking your doors and closing the curtains in the hope the DoJ stops knocking is not one of them. But given he had a history of complying with this nature of request, I'm curious why he suddenly changed his mind.

josefresco 12y ago
"Stonewalling the DOJ" Do you mean preparing your defense? Sure is easy for the DOJ to prepare their case ahead of time with seemingly unlimited assets and then demand a response to an unknowing and single party.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  What defense? They didn't charge him with anything until after the stonewalling. They sent him a warrant and requested that he comply, just as he'd done with all the previous warrants.
  - josefresco 12y ago
    I dunno... do you need to be officially charged with something to prepare an adequate defense?
wooter 12y ago
You're an apologist of the worst kind. If the government isn't playing by its own rules, I see no reason to play by them. If stonewalling - which I do NOT concede that he did - helped Snowden get away, that's a victory for the people. Also "Defender Of Freedom And Goodness," really? He gave up more than most of us for a cause that is equally important to all. Whether intentional or not, you're coming off as a pompous, condescending ass.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If he's an apologist, I'm pretty sure it's not of "the worst kind".
- akerl_ 12y ago
  I'm mostly just sad because he took what would have been an excellent opportunity to actually Fight The Man and instead made a couple gestures to spite them. Printing out the key on 4pt font, delaying to "[help] Snowden get away", and presenting them with absurd terms did not advance any cause, they were just ways to piss of the DoJ. If he's given up more than us, I wish he'd at least taken actions that had a modest chance of leading to changes in the law or the application of it.
  - josefresco 12y ago
    One man's "absurd terms" is another man's "proper defense". It's pretty common in a court battle for one side to ask for the moon with the full expectation that the other side will counter. If you don't make "absurd terms" then your "reasonable terms" might not happen either.
- dang 12y ago
  > You're an apologist of the worst kind. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

jackowayed 12y ago

Let's save the word rape for literal rape.

njharman 12y ago
Why? Other words are not given such extreme consideration.
angersock 12y ago
Likely derived from the Latin "rapio", which can also mean seize or carry off ( http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=rapio http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=rapio ). So, erm, seems reasonable, actually.
- afarrell 12y ago
  The meaning of a word used 1600 years ago in a society with a different culture and legal system does not change the plain meaning of a commonly-used word in English that has a specific meaning.
  - angersock 12y ago
    That word has, for better or worse, accrued additional, slightly less repugnant meanings--meanings which are commonly-used. Additionally, it does very much make sense to use that word (repugnant meanings and all!) to underscore the powerlessness of those going up against the State in our modern legal system. Hell, if you end up in the pen because of the aforementioned proceedings, you may end up using the original word anyways.