4 ms·

Worth noting: he did not say no. He stopped talking, then tried to throw down some ridiculous rules regarding payment and delivery of the information, then he c

by akerl_ 12y ago

Worth noting: he did not say no. He stopped talking, then tried to throw down some ridiculous rules regarding payment and delivery of the information, then he complied.

tptacek 12y ago
Even the demand for payment might be defensible in isolation. But that's not all he demanded; he also set terms for the provision of the data DOJ was requesting. To wit: he would provide the data in one giant batch at the end of the 60 day surveillance period, or, for an additional charge, on a daily basis. And under no circumstances would DOJ have had any way to verify the data they were given; they would have to trust that Levison would provide all the data they were looking for. Levison's complete knowledge of his own system might have furnished him with plenty of opportunities to employ technicalities to drastically curtail the information he provided to DOJ. And he had already established himself as an opponent of the investigation. The terms Levison proposed were reaching. They were coupled with a monetary demand. Levison clearly didn't require the money to comply with the order; given Lavabit's architecture, it was straightforward for him to generate the information DOJ wanted. He asked for the money not because DOJ's demands financially jeopardized his service, but instead to stick a fork in DOJ's eye.
- angersock 12y ago
  "Given Lavabit's architecture, it was straightforward for him to generate the information DOJ wanted." Where has this been covered? Also, is straightforward here being used interchangeably with "easy"?
  - natdempk 12y ago
    Here's a link to an overview of the service and architecture: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/8/13/in-memoriam-lavabit-architecture-creating-a-scalable-email-s.html http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/8/13/in-memoriam-lavabi... And a critique of the design from Moxie Marlinspike: http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/ http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/ The critique provides details about how relatively easily the server could obtain any information about an account and its contents.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I am unsure how else he could handle it. If he said a flat no, Would that not have ended with him swiftly in jail for x number of years? And jailed without any public knowledge of the reason (Ala CEO of an ISP?) Was his approach something he / his lawyers felt was more defensible? These are not good choices to have. In the end, I feel very very unconfortable with the direction we are being taken by our governments. Edit - that was coming over waaaay more aggressive than I meant -
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > I am unsure how else he could handle it. He could have complied with the Article III specific warrant issued in accordance with Constitutional guidelines, just as he did for earlier warrants, instead of electing himself President of the United States and acting like he was above the law.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
ssmoot 12y ago
Why does AT&T, Google, Microsoft, et all get a pass on billing for their work, probably with similar expedition fees on a very similar schedule (probably suggested by his lawyer after all), but Levinson doesn't? If the government wants to make me work, to be their mole, should I not be compensated for it? And shouldn't the expectations of that work be clearly defined? This seems like business/compliance 101 stuff, the easiest detail to rationalize away, and gets a lot more ink than it deserves.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  The primary issue wasn't the monetary requirement, it was the other riders on how the data was to be collected and provided to the DoJ. They would have had to trust that they were getting the data they'd requested, and that Levison wasn't altering it or excluding some of it. I apologize for not being clear in my earlier comment: if he'd just asked for the monetary compensation, I expect he would have gotten it.

by akerl_ 12y ago

Worth noting: he did not say no. He stopped talking, then tried to throw down some ridiculous rules regarding payment and delivery of the information, then he complied.

tptacek 12y ago

Even the demand for payment might be defensible in isolation. But that's not all he demanded; he also set terms for the provision of the data DOJ was requesting. To wit: he would provide the data in one giant batch at the end of the 60 day surveillance period, or, for an additional charge, on a daily basis. And under no circumstances would DOJ have had any way to verify the data they were given; they would have to trust that Levison would provide all the data they were looking for. Levison's complete knowledge of his own system might have furnished him with plenty of opportunities to employ technicalities to drastically curtail the information he provided to DOJ. And he had already established himself as an opponent of the investigation. The terms Levison proposed were reaching. They were coupled with a monetary demand. Levison clearly didn't require the money to comply with the order; given Lavabit's architecture, it was straightforward for him to generate the information DOJ wanted. He asked for the money not because DOJ's demands financially jeopardized his service, but instead to stick a fork in DOJ's eye.

angersock 12y ago
"Given Lavabit's architecture, it was straightforward for him to generate the information DOJ wanted." Where has this been covered? Also, is straightforward here being used interchangeably with "easy"?
- natdempk 12y ago
  Here's a link to an overview of the service and architecture: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/8/13/in-memoriam-lavabit-architecture-creating-a-scalable-email-s.html http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/8/13/in-memoriam-lavabi... And a critique of the design from Moxie Marlinspike: http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/ http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/ The critique provides details about how relatively easily the server could obtain any information about an account and its contents.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I am unsure how else he could handle it. If he said a flat no, Would that not have ended with him swiftly in jail for x number of years? And jailed without any public knowledge of the reason (Ala CEO of an ISP?) Was his approach something he / his lawyers felt was more defensible? These are not good choices to have. In the end, I feel very very unconfortable with the direction we are being taken by our governments. Edit - that was coming over waaaay more aggressive than I meant -
- mpyne 12y ago
  > I am unsure how else he could handle it. He could have complied with the Article III specific warrant issued in accordance with Constitutional guidelines, just as he did for earlier warrants, instead of electing himself President of the United States and acting like he was above the law.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

ssmoot 12y ago

Why does AT&T, Google, Microsoft, et all get a pass on billing for their work, probably with similar expedition fees on a very similar schedule (probably suggested by his lawyer after all), but Levinson doesn't? If the government wants to make me work, to be their mole, should I not be compensated for it? And shouldn't the expectations of that work be clearly defined? This seems like business/compliance 101 stuff, the easiest detail to rationalize away, and gets a lot more ink than it deserves.

akerl_ 12y ago
The primary issue wasn't the monetary requirement, it was the other riders on how the data was to be collected and provided to the DoJ. They would have had to trust that they were getting the data they'd requested, and that Levison wasn't altering it or excluding some of it. I apologize for not being clear in my earlier comment: if he'd just asked for the monetary compensation, I expect he would have gotten it.