6 ms·

Would you speculate on Levison's motive in your sequence of events? It's a solid analysis, but why would Levison do all of that? Your analysis changed my view

Would you speculate on Levison's motive in your sequence of events? It's a solid analysis, but why would Levison do all of that? Your analysis changed my view about Levison. I think people mostly equate Levison's actions to Snowden's without really thinking about the differences. Thought experiment: what if a mole was selling US secrets to other countries? If Levison would respond in the same fashion as in this Snowden case, then that obviously would be detrimental to the US's interests. But would he? Here's where it gets tricky. It's my understanding that Levison complied with past US orders. So that begs the question: why did Levison choose that moment to be rebellious? Was he trying to protect Snowden? (Did anyone even know who Snowden was or what he did at that point? My memory is hazy on the timeline.) It's certainly a convenient excuse to say that Levison was protecting Snowden. But if it's true, how would you feel about his actions in light of that fact? If Levison wasn't protecting Snowden, then why did he choose that particular hill to die on, and not any of the past compliance orders? It seems like Levison had some knowledge that prompted him to act the way he did. But if this all happened before Snowden became public knowledge, then what knowledge could have possibly converted him from someone who obediently follows government requests into someone who would "bait the FBI"? Beyond all of that, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on whether there's any possible excuse for Levison's actions which you personally would find redeeming.

tptacek 12y ago
I don't know how to answer this, but if you want a handy rule of thumb for how I think about controversies in tech: I generally favor the most boring of all speculations. Snowden isn't an agent of the FSB. The NSA isn't a secret ploy to enforce the Comics Code Authority. Levison was simply opportunistic and inept. The Truecrypt developers got bored and gave up. NIST p-224 isn't a good curve but it isn't a backdoor. And so on.
- jnbiche 12y ago
  >Levison was simply opportunistic and inept Actually, by far the simplest explanation in this case is that Levison supported Snowden's actions and wanted to back him up. I mean, he sacrificed his company -- his baby -- for this case, even though he had complied with multiple prior government requests (usually relating to child porn, from what I recall). Clearly, Levinson went through a period of fear and doubt, but the only consistency was his refusal to give up keys that would reveal Snowden's communications. Can you explain why you are convinced it's opportunism and not idealism? Because unless you know something we don't, Occam's Razor in this case says that Levison was simply being a Snowden supporter, to the point of sacrificing his livelihood. In my book, that makes him a patriot. Sillysaurus: yes, he knew the court order was for Snowden, since it specifically mentioned him by name. Also, I believe that an edsnowden@lavabit address (or something similar) was on GPG keyservers everywhere. So it wasn't hard to guess. And in fact, that address was soon revealed to be Snowden's in a public document from his lawyer sent by Wikileaks (accidentally).
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Was Snowden public knowledge when Levison was first served a warrant? I can't remember. Levison was served with a warrant very quickly. Are you sure his actions were to protect Snowden? EDIT: I meant, were Snowden's actions public knowledge when Levison was served the warrant? Not merely Snowden's name, but the extent of what he did?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    The opportunism I'm referring to was setting up Lavabit in the first place, as a web-based email provider that made expansive claims about security that it couldn't possibly back up. It's easy for me to understand why people think Levison is a hero. They think Lavabit was a noble, useful offering, and that government intervention is the only reason it failed. To understand my position, you need to know that Lavabit's architecture was almost comically unsound; it claimed to protect the privacy of thousands of users, but all the weight of that claim was borne by a set of keys Lavabit's operators had total control over. Online privacy tools don't need to work like this. They often do, though, because transcending this pitiful security model requires that users install software. Nobody wants to install software. Not to mention, most of the people who want to build and offer these tools don't really know how to build locally-installable software. There's nothing wrong with lacking the competence required to build secure messaging software. Most people do. Observe that for all the nitpicking about crypto that I do on HN, I haven't launched a tool like this either! But there's something very wrong with lacking competence but then going ahead and releasing something that users will stake their freedom on anyways.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Thank you for the insights. Why would Levison refuse to comply with the government order and shut down his company? If he was an opportunist, the opportunistic action would've been to comply with the secret order while keeping his compliance secret. Users would've continued to trust Lavabit.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Because "opportunism" and "principle" exist on spectrums. Opportunism prompted Levison to release a dangerously flawed privacy tool. But once that flaw threatened to compromise Snowden, circumstances crossed the threshold where principle required him to contain the damage he'd done.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Hmm, how was it an opportunity for Levison? Noncompliance killed his company and brought a lot of stress into his life. He could have kept silent and kept his income stream, but he resisted the government at every turn. Yet he had complied with past government requests. Shouldn't we try to understand why? (Generating conspiracy theories was about as far from my intent as possible. I was trying to analyze Levison's motive.)
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Oh, once the DOJ came knocking, it stopped being an opportunity real quick.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      I'm probably an idiot, but I don't understand how it was ever an opportunity to refuse to comply with a government order whose existence you're legally forbidden to reveal. Which opportunity are you referring to?
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Answered upthread.
sroerick 12y ago
This is something I've thought about a lot. It's not entirely clear to me why Ed Snowden had an account on Lavabit in the first place. Surely he must have known that any companies he operated with were going to receive NSLs. Did he pick Ladar Levison in the same way he picked Greenwald? The DoJ went after Lavabit the day after Snowden went public. I don't know what Levison's reputation was prior to Snowden's leaks, nor do I know why Edward Snowden used Lavabit for an email address. My hypothesis at this point is that Snowden hired an email contractor who he knew would go to bat and antagonize the legal system, in a similar way to how he had seen Glenn Greenwalds earlier work, and knew he would argue relentlessly against NSA press cycle. The goal is, obviously, to make a lot of noise, get a lot of people to disagree with you, and then prove them wrong. How are we going to look back on the DoJ 5 years from now?
- tptacek 12y ago
  It's the largest intelligence leak in the history of the US, up there with the cryptanalysis of Enigma (which didn't leak). And the premise of your comment is that DoJ investigating it was somehow abusive. This is filter-bubble logic.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    >And the premise of your comment is that DoJ investigating it was somehow abusive. Was it? I don't think I ever made that claim. I was just commenting that Snowden has demonstrated a prior knowledge of tactics that would be used against him, and perhaps selected Lavabit specifically because he knew Ladar Levison would raise holy hell. I compared it to his selection of Greenwald to report the stories. I actually think Levison's case is pretty weak, and I'm not sure I support him in his decision. I think he's clearly antagonistic and I don't think his case is a good one to support. But I can see it from his point of view, too. Having seen the Snowden revelations, I wouldn't want to help the NSA either. My guess, and this is totally unfounded in evidence, is that Snowden left a papertrail using his lavabit account, knowing full well that DoJ would investigate Levison.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  I'm not sure why this case would change anyone's views of DoJ. This isn't even close to the worst that they do and have done, on a regular basis.

tptacek 12y ago

I don't know how to answer this, but if you want a handy rule of thumb for how I think about controversies in tech: I generally favor the most boring of all speculations. Snowden isn't an agent of the FSB. The NSA isn't a secret ploy to enforce the Comics Code Authority. Levison was simply opportunistic and inept. The Truecrypt developers got bored and gave up. NIST p-224 isn't a good curve but it isn't a backdoor. And so on.

jnbiche 12y ago
>Levison was simply opportunistic and inept Actually, by far the simplest explanation in this case is that Levison supported Snowden's actions and wanted to back him up. I mean, he sacrificed his company -- his baby -- for this case, even though he had complied with multiple prior government requests (usually relating to child porn, from what I recall). Clearly, Levinson went through a period of fear and doubt, but the only consistency was his refusal to give up keys that would reveal Snowden's communications. Can you explain why you are convinced it's opportunism and not idealism? Because unless you know something we don't, Occam's Razor in this case says that Levison was simply being a Snowden supporter, to the point of sacrificing his livelihood. In my book, that makes him a patriot. Sillysaurus: yes, he knew the court order was for Snowden, since it specifically mentioned him by name. Also, I believe that an edsnowden@lavabit address (or something similar) was on GPG keyservers everywhere. So it wasn't hard to guess. And in fact, that address was soon revealed to be Snowden's in a public document from his lawyer sent by Wikileaks (accidentally).
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Was Snowden public knowledge when Levison was first served a warrant? I can't remember. Levison was served with a warrant very quickly. Are you sure his actions were to protect Snowden? EDIT: I meant, were Snowden's actions public knowledge when Levison was served the warrant? Not merely Snowden's name, but the extent of what he did?
- tptacek 12y ago
  The opportunism I'm referring to was setting up Lavabit in the first place, as a web-based email provider that made expansive claims about security that it couldn't possibly back up. It's easy for me to understand why people think Levison is a hero. They think Lavabit was a noble, useful offering, and that government intervention is the only reason it failed. To understand my position, you need to know that Lavabit's architecture was almost comically unsound; it claimed to protect the privacy of thousands of users, but all the weight of that claim was borne by a set of keys Lavabit's operators had total control over. Online privacy tools don't need to work like this. They often do, though, because transcending this pitiful security model requires that users install software. Nobody wants to install software. Not to mention, most of the people who want to build and offer these tools don't really know how to build locally-installable software. There's nothing wrong with lacking the competence required to build secure messaging software. Most people do. Observe that for all the nitpicking about crypto that I do on HN, I haven't launched a tool like this either! But there's something very wrong with lacking competence but then going ahead and releasing something that users will stake their freedom on anyways.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Thank you for the insights. Why would Levison refuse to comply with the government order and shut down his company? If he was an opportunist, the opportunistic action would've been to comply with the secret order while keeping his compliance secret. Users would've continued to trust Lavabit.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Because "opportunism" and "principle" exist on spectrums. Opportunism prompted Levison to release a dangerously flawed privacy tool. But once that flaw threatened to compromise Snowden, circumstances crossed the threshold where principle required him to contain the damage he'd done.
sillysaurus3 12y ago
Hmm, how was it an opportunity for Levison? Noncompliance killed his company and brought a lot of stress into his life. He could have kept silent and kept his income stream, but he resisted the government at every turn. Yet he had complied with past government requests. Shouldn't we try to understand why? (Generating conspiracy theories was about as far from my intent as possible. I was trying to analyze Levison's motive.)
- tptacek 12y ago
  Oh, once the DOJ came knocking, it stopped being an opportunity real quick.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I'm probably an idiot, but I don't understand how it was ever an opportunity to refuse to comply with a government order whose existence you're legally forbidden to reveal. Which opportunity are you referring to?
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Answered upthread.

sroerick 12y ago

This is something I've thought about a lot. It's not entirely clear to me why Ed Snowden had an account on Lavabit in the first place. Surely he must have known that any companies he operated with were going to receive NSLs. Did he pick Ladar Levison in the same way he picked Greenwald? The DoJ went after Lavabit the day after Snowden went public. I don't know what Levison's reputation was prior to Snowden's leaks, nor do I know why Edward Snowden used Lavabit for an email address. My hypothesis at this point is that Snowden hired an email contractor who he knew would go to bat and antagonize the legal system, in a similar way to how he had seen Glenn Greenwalds earlier work, and knew he would argue relentlessly against NSA press cycle. The goal is, obviously, to make a lot of noise, get a lot of people to disagree with you, and then prove them wrong. How are we going to look back on the DoJ 5 years from now?

tptacek 12y ago
It's the largest intelligence leak in the history of the US, up there with the cryptanalysis of Enigma (which didn't leak). And the premise of your comment is that DoJ investigating it was somehow abusive. This is filter-bubble logic.
- sroerick 12y ago
  >And the premise of your comment is that DoJ investigating it was somehow abusive. Was it? I don't think I ever made that claim. I was just commenting that Snowden has demonstrated a prior knowledge of tactics that would be used against him, and perhaps selected Lavabit specifically because he knew Ladar Levison would raise holy hell. I compared it to his selection of Greenwald to report the stories. I actually think Levison's case is pretty weak, and I'm not sure I support him in his decision. I think he's clearly antagonistic and I don't think his case is a good one to support. But I can see it from his point of view, too. Having seen the Snowden revelations, I wouldn't want to help the NSA either. My guess, and this is totally unfounded in evidence, is that Snowden left a papertrail using his lavabit account, knowing full well that DoJ would investigate Levison.
jessaustin 12y ago
I'm not sure why this case would change anyone's views of DoJ. This isn't even close to the worst that they do and have done, on a regular basis.