Slashdot Mirror


Encrypted Email Provider Lavabit Shuts Down, Blames US Gov't

clorkster writes to note the following explanation posted to the front page of encrypted email provider Lavabit: "'I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what's going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.' No doubt this has much to do with Snowden's use of the provider."

771 comments

  1. OK. by CaptainStumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

    So it has come to this.

    --
    It will be better to purchase from an owner who is a good farmer and a good builder.
    1. Re: OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's been this. Now it's just getting worse and getting more public exposure.

    2. Re: OK. by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 5, Informative

      ..and to the dipshit below. It's an obligatory XKCD reference. https://xkcd.com/1022/

    3. Re:OK. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So it has come to this.

      Well if your clients are customers who use your service because it wont be snopped I would say you are screwed!

      American cloud companies are now suffering. I put this link as a story, and I am surprised the slashdot editors didn't accept this.

      60% of all European companies are canceling their cloud contracts or are revising them due to security concerns!

      Canada's health ministry is quotes in that article's comments on already cancelling as there is no confidentiality thanks to the NSA's prism program.

      So my hunch is it is not his overeaction, but all his customers leaving for European or Canadian encrypted email cloud providers instead.

    4. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let's popularize lightweight email server/client combo software which is free/cheap, runs on individual computers rather than servers, and has easy, open source encryption plugins.

    5. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom Plug ? Sheevaplug ? Raspberry PI ? GNUpg ? TOR ?

    6. Re:OK. by Lanforod · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA you posted. Your statement is wrong. Canadian government organizations, including health care, are not allowed to store any data outside of Canada. It isn't that the health ministry (actually a health organization as per the article) cancelled a service to a US based cloud service, it's that they would never use one, or even consider using one.

    7. Re: OK. by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      We're referencing XKCD rather than saying "First psot" now or, god forbid, anything insightful about the government forcing e-mail to be insecure?... So it has come to this.

    8. Re: OK. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1, Funny

      ..and to the dipshit below. It's an obligatory XKCD reference. https://xkcd.com/1022/

      Obligatory Response., it is always relevant to the mention of XKCD. Book mark this link. Click it when you think about posting about XKCD. This is so you can know how it is for others. Imagine that even something you don't care for could become unbearable given inability to escape it.

    9. Re:OK. by snadrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cloud movement could have been the next great economic success (mostly in the US), but instead the entire economic opportunity is being shut-down by the very government that it would most benefit.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    10. Re:OK. by icebike · · Score: 1

      Server side encrypted mail makes no sense. You end up trusting the server and SSL when neither of these is trustworthy.

      If you aren't using your own public key encryption you are fooling yourself.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you are using Android, Kindle, iPhone, iPad or any NSL-inviting device, you are fooling yourself.

    12. Re:OK. by garyebickford · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've never been convinced that the cloud was a good place to store stuff - even without the US (or any) government involved. In general, 'midnight auto supply and cloud services inc.' just seems like a really unreliable and unsafe place to put the business jewels, so to speak. It's hard enough to manage security for one's own hardware and software, but trusting an anonymous entity with unknown employees and who-knows-what kind of locks and security arrangements means that if a break-in occurs you are never even likely to know about it, much less have anything you can do about it.

      Protip - a few years ago I was talking to the then-head of the Navy's then-nascent cybersecurity team (soon to become one or two battalions). He said that their red-team tests showed that the average cost to buy your way into a Fortune 500 company's data center was $7500. If nothing else, Snowden showed that it may cost nothing at all.

      And that's not even to mention the potential penetrations at every ISP on the way to and from the cloud provider.

      (Snowden seems to me somewhat equivalent to the 'Falcon' in "The Falcon and the Snowman", with updated technology. In 1975, the Falcon became concerned about what he saw coming across the teletype at TRW, and one thing led to another. He got out of prison (after 24 years of a 40 year sentence) a few years ago.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    13. Re: OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been here awhile but I don't know what NSL inviting is. sorry for my noobish inquiry.
      someone please parse the acronym NSL for me.
      thanks

    14. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.

      Some years ago, the British Columbia government farmed out medical records systems to a US-base company.

      They "reassured" the popuation that the data would stay in Canada, but really - when the US government invokes the PATRIOT Act and demands info from the company, they're going to say "Sorry, but BC law forbids us from giving you that data"?
       

    15. Re:OK. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Are any of the old NYM email servers still up and running? I remember bouncing emails, encrypted on each node ...and if really wanting ti safe, to have the replies all end up on an anon group on USENET.

      Is Mixmaster still working ?

      I've not tried looking into this in ages, but is anyone else using them? Are they all compromised and shut down now?

      What about freenet, is that still in existence and anonymous?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re: OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National Secutiry Letter.

    17. Re:OK. by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      60% of all European companies are canceling their cloud contracts or are revising them due to security concerns!

      When you use statistics like that, you look like you're trying to use statistics to make things look much worse than they are. You are lumping two very different categories together, those that cancels their accounts and those that revised their contracts. If 1% of companies canceled their accounts and 59% of companies requested clarification on what was shared with the NSA the statistic is valid but meaningless. If the numbers are reversed the they are still valid, but would signal the collapse of the cloud services industry in the US. It's dishonest. Please stop.

    18. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Government is very good at wrecking the economy. If you don't believe that, just ask President Obama. Everything business he touches crumbles to dust.

    19. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think it was about money? And it did benefit the government greatly, just ask the NSA and the other surveillance agencies in the US. Look at how many companies pushed for cloud services, and are trying to force people to use "cloud based software" that then saves your data in the cloud. I do not see how this would help the economy, when you look at the price of buying a personal physical storage device, compared to what it costs to build and run a cloud service.

      And even if they encrypt the data the NSA and others will just twist there arm to give them the keys, or face a shut down because they are harboring terrorists. What they've done with Lavabit, is shut them done to find out if they have any files of the NSA's operations. The outrageous part is how Lavabit has been gagged and tortured (yes, a little dramatic) to keep there mouth shut, over how and why they suspended there service, the treats, and whatever else the NSA or unknown agencies said or did to them.

      I am 50/50 on this but this whole BS over communism, and now terrorism is an attempt to control anyone and everyone. To prevent an overthrow of government, or upset the wealthy powers that be from there monopolies, ect, ect... Anytime someone has preached and garnered enough backing to support what really should be freedom they end up dead or on a list of "dangerous people".

    20. Re:OK. by SeaFox · · Score: 0

      >Protip - a few years ago I was talking to the then-head of the Navy's then-nascent cybersecurity team (soon to become one or two battalions). He said that their red-team tests showed that the average cost to buy your way into a Fortune 500 company's data center was $7500. If nothing else, Snowden showed that it may cost nothing at all.

      In Snowden Revolution, Fortune 500 company pays YOU, to infiltrate their data center.

    21. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come again?

    22. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't this mean that these providers need to also not allow transmission of data to non-Canadian located clients? And prevent routing traffic through non-Canadian nodes? In theory, HTTPS and similar encryption should be able to keep the data secure...

    23. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are any of the old NYM email servers still up and running? I remember bouncing emails, encrypted on each node

      > Is Mixmaster still working ?

      > I've not tried looking into this in ages, but is anyone else using them? Are they all compromised and shut down now?

      AFAIK, they still exist. However, this should all be built-in client-side! Have messages shuffled between users; each MUA a remailer. That would do the trick, if padded with Mixmaster on top of GPG, dummy messages etc..

    24. Re:OK. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      P2P email?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    25. Re:OK. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The truly depressing thing is the US operation "Falcon" was upset about, which was about an attempt to remove the Australian leader from office, was not only entirely pointless because that leader was politically doomed but was also fucked up so badly that Australian Intelligence found out about it immediately and reported it to that leader before the plan could be carried out. So "Falcon" got upset about a completely useless failed operation of zero value even if it had succeeded instead of something more important like giving Italian terrorists bombs that were used to kill people.

    26. Re:OK. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm safe! I'm using a Chinese ... never mind.

    27. Re:OK. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      They're not suffering yet if the persistent rumors about what is about to get released are anywhere near the reality. Apparently the next batch will tell the story of industrial espionage as conducted by NSA and then provided as a service to US companies. If that gets confirmed, you can start seeing actual government sanctions from large trading partners like EU, China, Russia and so on. And it's then when the meaning of "suffering" for US companies will start to really be realized in this particular case.

      Right now it's just cloud companies that start getting squeezed. That's nothing major when you look at US-dominated IT industry as a whole.

    28. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Big Government 101 -- destroying markets, economies, and prosperity since the beginning of time.

    29. Re:OK. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      (Snowden seems to me somewhat equivalent to the 'Falcon' in "The Falcon and the Snowman", with updated technology.

      Nah, the Falcon seems to have been much crazier (and more amusing) than boring old Snowden:

      On 21 January 1980, Boyce escaped from Lompoc. While a fugitive, Boyce carried out 17 bank robberies in Idaho and Washington State. Adopting the alias of "Anthony Edward Lester," Boyce did not believe he could live as a fugitive forever, and began to study aviation in an attempt to flee to the Soviet Union, where he believed he would accept a commission as an officer in the Soviet Armed Forces.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    30. Re:OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You... Me... this situation...

    31. Re:OK. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The cloud movement could have been the next great economic success (mostly in the US), but instead the entire economic opportunity is being shut-down by the very government that it would most benefit.

      Just because a dog has pups in an oven, you can't call them biscuits.

      Lack of security, and giving your data to others is an inherent issue with "The cloud". It is inherently insecure, it is inherently possible/likely/inevitable for your data to be lost, it is inherently just a rehash of 1980s computer pipe dreams that was appealing to management because they thought they could get rid of people, and perhaps score a juicy bonus and/or stock options in the deal. Coupled with some geeks enjoying the technical challenge and buying in.

      In the end, it might be considered ironic what is bringing the cloud down, but it was going to happen one way or another. I was personally expecting foreign states or business competitors, who might have worked to block access, bring servers down, or just corrupt the data, but this works against it also.

      In the end though, "The cloud" was afflicted by too many people saying "This is the best thing to ever happen on earth, we will march to a glorious and grand future with the Cloud as our stepping stone! And way too few people saying "What could go wrong?" Or being allowed to say it for that matter. I've been called an idiot many times for my thoughts on the cloud. Perhaps I am an idiot, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re: OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing new to this really, I recall stories of the same occurring by US eavesdropping on comms lines in Germany in the eighties/ early nineties picking up innovations prior to patent submissions and releasing to US companies. Same story, bigger scale.

      We will not see EU sanctioning US trade but the story will make for a great transatlantic political bargaining tool...

      History repeats...

    33. Re:OK. by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      They're not suffering yet if the persistent rumors about what is about to get released are anywhere near the reality. Apparently the next batch will tell the story of industrial espionage as conducted by NSA and then provided as a service to US companies. If that gets confirmed, you can start seeing actual government sanctions from large trading partners like EU, China, Russia and so on. And it's then when the meaning of "suffering" for US companies will start to really be realized in this particular case.

      Right now it's just cloud companies that start getting squeezed. That's nothing major when you look at US-dominated IT industry as a whole.

      Still nothing new, as other countries do this. Even countries we consider to be our military allies, can still be our economic adversaries and spy on us to gain economic or industrial advantages. Embarrassing to the US on the international stage maybe, but you won't see any real sanctions beyond scolding.

    34. Re:OK. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This argument includes a massive lie of omission. It omits the fact that many of the IT services on the internet used by average citizens of those countries are US-based. At the same time few if any IT services used by US citizen are French/German/Russian/Chinese.

      This turns the scenario from plus minus zero to one sided dominance. That does in fact have a serious chance of causing more then "scolding".

      That said, considering the sheer amount of blackmail material NSA now has on most of the Western leaders and the fact that much of the EU agenda has clearly been driven by US interests in the last decade, we'll likely see more of the german style "verbal agreements to not spy" which will mean jack shit. But we'll see.

  2. Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I once lived there. I've been a tourist there a couple of times. I don't think I'll ever set mu foot there again. Good luck.

    1. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      very sad. once we hold you in great esteem USA, but now we doubt if it is a good idea to go there for a mere vacation.

    2. Re:Great country you have over there by kheldan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Good luck with that, it's actually worse everywhere else from what I can see.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes I've heard that people in the US are not aware of what's happening in the rest of the world.

    4. Re:Great country you have over there by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a shame, and I say that as a proud American. We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first); we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity, and some lovely people. We have some fantastic cultural things. It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place to everyone else.

      Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough.

    5. Re:Great country you have over there by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyne else? I think we need to work on welcoming our own citizens first.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    6. Re:Great country you have over there by Zemran · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having spent the past 10 years away from home, I can assure you that there are few places worse. Central Africa has some bad destinations if you really need to find one but most places are really great. Moscow really is a lot better from most aspects. The women are stunning and there is a lot to do and plenty of work, so he has really stepped up.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    7. Re:Great country you have over there by Entropius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Point. I know American citizens of Hispanic ancestry who worked at some of the telescopes surrounding Tucson. Their jobs, of course, required them to drive at night on country roads -- where the Border Patrol harassed them. There was a lawsuit; I'm not sure how it came out. (These people were culturally American; there are quite a few Hispanics whose ancestors lived in what was northern Mexico and became Americans when we acquired the Arizona area from Mexico, and whose families have been in the area for centuries.)

    8. Re:Great country you have over there by ImdatS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As someone who has moved to the US only about four years ago, I can say that it still is a great country. There is still the possibility to fix the government's wrongdoings - and there are really great people here in the US.

      The country is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen (well, it is half a continent, isn't it?). I took the California Zephyr and traveled a little, otherwise spent most of my time at the East Coast or West Coast. I'm planning to do a cross-country trip quite soon with a car.

      But so, whether it was in the major cities or small towns and villages - the people are really great, nice, not always educated enough (to my expectations), but have a great heart.

      Unfortunately, the last decade was a nightmare as a lot of people here started thinking about isolationism again - also arrogance (Government mostly, but also some John Does).

      I think there are only very few things that Americans need to do to make their country really a Great Country again:

      1) Fight for your freedoms that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution - all your rights are there and you need to grab them back from your government and government agencies;
      2) Have a serious interest in what's really going on in the world - politically, economically, socially - and take actions (not military) using soft-power to expand the rights and freedoms into other places in the world;
      3) Use your riches to share with the rest of the world and help people in other places to increase their wellbeing/wealth
      4) Take responsible action towards the nature and environment - you are the guys who, more or less, "invented" National Parks and Nature Reserves
      5) Stop waging war on anything - fighting against terrorists is a police activity, not military - there is no need for a "War on Terrorism" (we in Good Ol' Europe had terrorism for a very long time and made a lot of mistakes - learn from them - but we never fought a "War on Terror" [except Turkey])
      6) And stay/become liberal, welcoming, diverse again - as much as possible.

      I must say, having lived in Europe, Turkey and in spent some time in other countries, the US is still the country where I feel most "free" - that doesn't mean it is free, but it is to show how "unfree" you can feel in other places on this planet. Let's just make the US again the "Country of Ms Liberty"

    9. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better don't go to the US just for vacation. One of their 251 "secret intelligence databases" might hold a badly spelled record for an "Al Leks An NA shiri" and you name is Alexander Nazhni. AI name matching will "flag" you for deportation to Gitmo. There, you can't have a lawyer of your chosing, everything will be secret like the Spanish Inquisition.

      I have been a few times to the US and the UK, but these people are no so scared of their police and their arbitrary actions that I have absolutely no intention to visit these countries ever again.

    10. Re:Great country you have over there by fast+turtle · · Score: 0, Troll

      As someone that can and has traced their ancestory back to before even the thought of Revolution was a gleam in someone's eye, all I can say is Good! The rest of the world can go to hell in its own handbasket. Close the damn borders, pull the troops home, and shut down all our bases around the world while kicking the U.N. over to Geneva where they should have been after Y2K. Yes I'm one of those who's tired of the god damn beefing by everyone else about America sticking our nose into their business and then turning around and demanding we do something about their stinking shit like Syria. Sorry folks, you made your bed, now you have to lie in it w/o our help or even our concern. BTW, we all need to cut off all donations to Agencies such as the Red Cross and what not that leaves the country while taking at least a presidential term to clean up our infrastructure, cities and getting things straightened out here. Simply put, to hell with you idiots who demand I give a damn about your petty problems when I've got enough to do just to keep my head above water.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    11. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you have not lived in the Netherlands.

    12. Re:Great country you have over there by mi · · Score: 1

      where the Border Patrol harassed them

      This is interesting... Not the nasty Arizona police — Border Patrol? Could you elaborate on the nature of the harassment?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All the fatalism by Slashdot posters is completely ridiculous. Liberty requires "eternal vigilance", which necessitates optimism. You can't throw your hands up. You must complain and then methodically, untiringly work for change.

      The free speech rights we enjoy these days were unheard of 100 years ago. The First Amendment was a dead letter until the 1940s-1950s. Parents were arrested if their kids refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Passing out union labor flyers in public parks was illegal.

      The same Founding Fathers who passed the First Amendment also passed the Alien & Sedition Act. The Founding Fathers did not literally intend for us to have the freedoms we enjoy now. They're novel and extravagant. We had to develop as a society for over a hundred years _after_ the Bill of Rights was passed in order to institute them.

      Same thing with 4th Amendment rights. The police routinely violated search & seizure law well into the 1960s. It was the Warren Court that gave us the protections we enjoy now. Again, these are far more than the Founding Fathers ever expected or intended. Why? For one thing government was much smaller; they were more concerned about providing small governments flexibility than in reigning in a huge government.

      All the "checks & balances" and separation of powers theory was directed toward the federal government, which was never meant to regulate day-to-day life. And many Founding Fathers stated that things like the Bill of Rights were not even necessarily to be enforced by the courts, but were simply proclamations to be obeyed by the legislature, lest they be voted out office. The whole notion of judicial review was never discussed much because it never entered into their thinking or expectations.

      So, seriously people. Work for change. Donate money to the ACLU, EFF, etc. We have a loooonngggggg road ahead of us. Things could get much, much worse. But they can also get much, much better. The freedoms we enjoy now are unprecedented in even American history. They're at jeopardy, for sure, but that's no excuse for giving up.

    14. Re:Great country you have over there by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      We also came up with the missionary position.

      You're welcome.

    15. Re:Great country you have over there by solanum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't want to appear to be joining any anti-US bandwagon or proffering an opinion on any perceived rights and wrongs, but the irony of your post is quite amazing. The origin of much anti-US feeling is that people see the US as interfering in their region, whereas you are complaining that those who have anti-US feeling should do without US involvement in their region...

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
    16. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1 Alas no mod points today!

    17. Re:Great country you have over there by dmbasso · · Score: 2

      So, seriously people. Work for change. Donate money to the ACLU, EFF, etc.

      Also, http://www.wolf-pac.com/ You can help by signing the petition, donating money, or helping organize the movement in your state.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    18. Re:Great country you have over there by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a United Statsian I can say that I once held us in esteem too. Now American exceptionalism, hyper-partisan politics, and Orwellian jingoism are the new norm. My wife and I have been seriously considering moving to another country while the getting is good. Any suggestions for an application developer and an environmental engineer?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    19. Re:Great country you have over there by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the glory hole!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    20. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a shame, and I say that as a proud American. We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first); we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity, and some lovely people. We have some fantastic cultural things. It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place to everyone else.

      Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough.

      One can now grasp the monumental effort to gain support for basic ideas of individual rights, liberalism, freedom, rule of law to build the framework for civilized society in a hostile environment with established feudal and religious interests on one side and a relatively uneducated, religious minded and subsistence population on the other.

      The bulk of educated, well informed and well fed americans and europeans sadly, tragically seem to be relatively unconcernnd, even disinterested in this mass erosion of fundamental building blocks of their modern societies. Protests, outrage, indignation, anger, debate are eerily absent.

      Can you believe the very things that define you, and you criticize and have for decades in others, is now you; the essence of your modernity is compromised, and the whole world has taken a gigantic step back. And all it took is one man, Bin Laden.

    21. Re:Great country you have over there by chihowa · · Score: 1

      In his defense, the GP suggests that to "make their country really a Great Country again", Americans needs to interfere with other regions of the world (2), just not militarily (5). In fact, of the six things he lists, 3.5 of them involve other countries (2, 3, 5, maybe 6). And, like a panhandler on the street, he explicitly asks for the US to give money to the rest of the world. It seems that the Greatness of the US is directly tied to how much benefit other countries can glean from her.

      The person you're replying to is complaining because Americans are constantly hearing complaints from non-Americans to stop interfering in other countries' affairs and simultaneously being chided for not interfering in some different countries' affairs. Americans seem to be divided between hawkish types who want to interfere with other countries militarily and the rest who don't want to be the world's policemen. The person you're replying to is clearly of the latter group, which isn't particularly ironic in any way.

      The only irony I see is that, in an article specifically about the poor state of citizen's rights in the US, the whole conversation was shifted so quickly by non-Americans to the foreign policy of the US and how the US should change its policy to benefit non-Americans.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    22. Re:Great country you have over there by ImdatS · · Score: 1

      I never directly mentioned anything like money to others.

      "Soft Power" means that you use your political and economical clout, such us using the UN, as well as e.g. access to your market as a means to convince other countries to behave differently, more in-line with American values.

      Also sharing riches not necessarily means giving money; there are countries that are significantly richer in per-capita income... I meant your values that are enshrined in your Constitution as well as in your Declaration of Independence; lastly, riches also contains the diversity, creativity, and entrepreneurship -

      You know, not everything is about money - there are more riches in the US than just money. In fact, the US is basically bankrupt - it owes over 2 Trillion to the Chinese Government alone.

      So, please do not put words in my mouth - sharing riches and having an interest in what's going in the world doesn't necessarily mean giving money away. In fact, giving away money would be the dumbest thing to do - You know the saying: "Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach him how to fish..."

      The US has more to give than just money and soldiers. You just have to understand and use it rightly and be more inline with the values enshrined in valuable documents as well as the values the US preaches.

      The greatness of a person or a country, still, lies not in his money, power or values - but rather in how he uses it...

    23. Re:Great country you have over there by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Border patrol operates quite far from the border these days. I was quite surprised to be stopped on 40 in New Mexico at a checkpoint. As an immigrant, I was glad I had my green card with me (though I had no idea I would be needing it) though I'm sure I could have gotten away with lying about being an American citizen.

    24. Re:Great country you have over there by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I was quoting "Talladega Nights," but... uh...

    25. Re:Great country you have over there by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Why is it ironic? Much of the outrage comes from within dictatorships, where it's the only valid, and indeed encouraged, opinion. Or from Europe, where people sit safe and sound well away from dictatorships. When you get to the actual people, they know what's going on, and still line up to get the hell out of those murderous hellholes.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:Great country you have over there by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Informative

      We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first);

      You misspelled Yellowstone

    27. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Yellowstone

    28. Re:Great country you have over there by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      If you follow mining/resources you should be good.

      Until recently Australia would have been good - apparently Perth has something like 2/3 or the worlds mining/oil & gas software development. Plus all those mines need enviros too.

      With the gold price drop it has weakened a bit and people are nervous, but it will recover and settle down again soon.

    29. Re:Great country you have over there by Deadstick · · Score: 0

      We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first)

      Yellowstone.

    30. Re:Great country you have over there by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Sir/Ma'am, your comment needs to be framed, hung in the foyer of the Senate Building, and copies sent to all the senators/representitives in the House & Senate.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    31. Re:Great country you have over there by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I have been on this planet for near 50 years and the last year has made me think that refugees will be building off world colonies in the next 50 or so. There is virtually nowhere people can go now to ensure freedom. It is possible that a private colony will start in Antarctica and trigger a new wave of nationalism, with countries making firm claims to territory there, and moving their military in to enforce their claims.

    32. Re:Great country you have over there by OneAhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      and then turning around and demanding we do something about their stinking shit like Syria.

      You know, the international community as a whole typically doesn't ask the US to interfere - it's only the US media and the hawkish right that would have you believe so. Sure, in every conflict, there will always be someone asking the US for help - often both sides in fact. If you're in a fight, it just seems logical to kindly ask the trigger-happy 100-pound gorilla to help you. If the US wants to fight at any side in any conflict, it can pick freely whose call for help to answer. But the international community, represented by the UN of which you have such a low opinion? In a large percentage of the last 30 years' conflicts, they've been trying to stop the US from going in with guns a blazin' because that would ruin diplomatic efforts. A particularly striking example was when it didn't buy the false WMD evidence against Saddam. That's when the public opinion in the US turned against UN (and France, to distract from the fact that a majority of the western European countries were opposed). So ironically, you're hating the UN for trying to stop the US from fighting other people's wars. You'd better direct your hate at those Americans who have been misleading you into thinking everyone is constantly asking the US to fight their wars, while people in the rest of the world were scratching their heads and asking "why do these yanks insist on being involved in every spark of conflict that arises?"

    33. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yellowstone was the first NP.

    34. Re:Great country you have over there by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      (we in Good Ol' Europe had terrorism for a very long time and made a lot of mistakes - learn from them - but we never fought a "War on Terror" [except Turkey])

      Interesting point - I guess you could say that WWI was started due to terrorism - the shot that killed the Archduke of Austria (shortly after an attempted grenade attack).

      As a geek, I might also say that there was a bug in the structure of international relations (too many, too strong mutual defence treaties, and a colonial structure that brought in otherwise uninvolved nations), that allowed one incident to trigger war declarations that then propagated across the continent and the world, without limit (other than the planet itself).

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    35. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I moved out 4 years ago, 1 more year until I'm a dual-citizen. What languages do you speak? Any places you'd like to go? The people I know who moved because they wanted to get away all ended up hating it. It works much better to actually want to go somewhere. If you are worried about jobs, start looking on international job boards and see where the jobs are. You can even apply to some when you aren't residents. Most will ignore you, but some will consider helping you get residency.

      Go someplace where you speak the language. I'd consider the UK, even though I wouldn't really want to live there. I could put up with it for 5 or 10 years to get citizenship, then you can go anywhere in the EU. But I'm happy where I ended up, though I may look into EU once I get my dual citizenship.

    36. Re:Great country you have over there by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      That's a shame, and I say that as a proud American. We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first); we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity, and some lovely people. We have some fantastic cultural things. It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place for its citizens and everyone else.

      Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough.

      There. FTFY.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    37. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's what most Americans who've never left the US would say. In practice, there are few places worse. You'd have to work hard to land somewhere worse. China is better than the US, so long as you don't spend time and money opposing the government.

    38. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ImdatS .. you are right on every point. I would add one more related point: EDUCATION.
      FOR EVERYONE. It is a weakness that only the rich in America have good Healthcare, and
      good schooling. Weakness / tragedy. Because it seems to me, an older man, that although
      I agree with you in liking America (having lived there almost as much as in Canada), it
      is going down, not up. There is a certain provincialism now ..

    39. Re:Great country you have over there by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 1

      We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first)

      Surely you meant Yellowstone?

    40. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's ok now....they're gone. "

    41. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Yellowstone was the first place called a National Park, but Yosemite was the first in all but name and is what set the precedent for Yellowstone.

    42. Re:Great country you have over there by Cimexus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can I just say that as someone who has just moved to the US four MONTHS (not years) ago, I echo this sentiment completely. I can tell that this place used to be the America that some people still think it is - the most prosperous, fair and free society on earth. And the people are still some of the friendliest you will meet. But gee, it's going downhill fast.

      My experience in the first four months, for anyone that's interested in a new immigrant's perspective:

      The amount of poverty (or near-poverty) here compared to my home country (Australia) astounds me. Huge portions of the population barely getting by...the run-down infrastructure etc. Not to say there's not nice areas too ... but it's really inconsistent. You don't see that at home (due no doubt in part to a more progressive tax structure and universal medical/housing safety-nets). Education seems a bit lacking too - not so much formal education but general awareness by people of what's going on, both at home and abroad, and general knowledge (particularly of scientific matters). A lot of that comes down to the utterly terrible TV news here (relying on my VPN back to Australia to get decent ABC/SBS/BBC news services) and the lack of a decent documentary-focused public broadcaster (PBS is OK, but it pales in comparison to BBC/ABC (Australia)/CBC (Canada) etc.)

      On top of that, I don't feel any more (or less) free here than in Australia. Sure there are some things I can technically do a bit easier in America - buy a gun, speed on the highway (speeding isn't enforced here as strictly as in Australia), etc. But OTOH, they have some weird restrictions on alcohol here (an older drinking age being only the tip of the iceberg) and certain other recreational drugs are prohibited in the US whereas they were decriminalized in my state in Australia. The US is also far more censored - it's actually quite hilarious seeing what they blur out or beep out on TV here. (My American wife was fairly shocked to see full frontal nudity on standard free-to-air TV in Australia, on the flip side). Both countries have similar fundamental rights and freedoms (America's are codified in the Bill of Rights, Australia's stem from the Westminster principles of good governance, centuries of local and English common law precedent, human rights statutes at a State level and accession to international rights treaties). Ironically, even though rights are arguably more strongly protected, on paper, in the US than Australia, it also seems that they are more regularly violated or infringed upon in the US too.

      I do feel more 'monitored' here. More subject to suspicion, identification, verification. Every man and his dog asks you for ID or the ubiquitous SSN (Australia has no equivalent to this and even if it did, what the hell does social security have to do with my electric company or ISP or any other company that randomly seems to need my SSN?). I was prevented from doing basic things like buy some over-the-counter cold medicine (because I didn't have a US driver license ... they wouldn't accept a passport, even a US passport!) or open a checking account at a bank (because I have no credit record ... why does that matter when I'm not even trying to borrow any money!?) None of that would be an issue for a new immigrant in Australia, but here I've had no end of problems doing even the most basic things. Cops seem aggressive, paranoid and unfriendly here, whereas at home they are usually pretty nice guys and treat you with respect. It just feels ... very unwelcoming ... not like the America I expected. And I should be a 'desirable' immigrant by any standards - university educated, significant assets and savings, a stable well-paying job, no criminal history etc.

      The other thing that really surprised me is the bloatedness and inefficiency of the government. Americans look at places like Australia and think we must have a huge government in order to deliver all those social programs such as

    43. Re:Great country you have over there by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Tucson is close enough to the border that they come there.

      They were stopped without probable cause for a crime repeatedly, which is enough. I don't know all the details.

      The AZ police are only really bad in Maricopa County, where Arpaio has his lair. In Tucson they're pretty good.

    44. Re:Great country you have over there by Entropius · · Score: 1

      See above -- Yosemite didn't get the name first, but it was what started the idea (spurred on by the work of Ansel Adams there).

    45. Re:Great country you have over there by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Nope, see above. Yellowstone was the first official one, but the idea came from Yosemite.

    46. Re:Great country you have over there by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the UK??? are you serious?

      if anything, they are THE poster child for anti-freedom and snooping. they are known as the nanny state and for good reason.

      I used to travel to the UK quite regularly. I will probably never return, now. things are too creepy there and the country is melting down, bit by bit. they are a has-been.

      and the US is well on its way to the same fate.

      I feel sorry for both our countries. we used to be great (both of us) but now, we are nothing like what made us great ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    47. Re:Great country you have over there by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      america looks good to you - probably because you came from a crap country (sorry for being blunt).

      those who were born here and knew it in its greatness are NOT nearly as pleased with its current state as you are.

      its all relative, but as someone who has spent over 50 years here, I'm not at all happy with the direction we are headed in. and I don't see ANY sign of improvement happening. if anything, we are falling down and losing what made us great.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    48. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the lights go out in the rest of the world
      What do our Cousins say?
      They playing in the sun
      Having fun, fun fun
      'Til Daddy takes their gun away.
                                  Billy Bragg, Help Save the Youth of America

    49. Re:Great country you have over there by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      As a holder of the passport issued by the government of the United States of America, I have not been living in the States for more than a decades

      I moved out in the late 1990's. I stay in Asia and in Africa now, and have foregone the idea of staying inside ONE country for the rest of my life

      If I am going to be a citizen of the world, I will be a citizen of the WORLD

      protip: learn to speak several languages, they will come very handy

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    50. Re:Great country you have over there by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod up what you said so eloquently, but you're maxed out at 5. Thanks for this insightful post.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    51. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As someone that can and has traced their ancestory back to before even the thought of Revolution was a gleam in someone's eye, all I can say is Good! ....

      Ho Lee Shit- you're not trolling, are you.

      So you're the blind guy who grabbed the elephant's tail and decided all elephants must be like ropes. You sound like you're scraping the top layer off of news stories and taking what you find as unassailable fact. Must be nice to not have to worry about those pesky nuances and all that wheels-within-wheels international relations shit... doesn't even exist for you, does it.

    52. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Did you read what I said? I didn't advocate the UK as a better place, but as a convenient place to get EU citizenship to go to other countries in the EU that are better. I was thinking that I'd go to the UK to get EU, then retire on the Spanish Riveria. Though, turns out the UK changed its rules, making it harder for skilled migrants to get in. If I'd gone to the UK first, and here later, I'd already ave EU citizenship and would still have been able to get in here, as the rules did not change substantially in the past 10 years.

    53. Re:Great country you have over there by nebular · · Score: 1

      The US is too big to ever be free again. Allowing the freedoms that the founding fathers wanted would jeopardize it's place as the controlling superpower. The people could fight, they would be crushed. By force and by propaganda. China already does it and they are growing by leaps and bounds.

      It's sad but it's true, the bill of rights is a hindrance to big business, especially international big business.

      Much like Rome started by dumping it's kings and creating a republic, so too is the Pax Americana, and it is coming to the down slope. Everything will slowly change, as things did under Ceasar and Augustus to the point where the original ideals are but figureheads and then it will collapse on itself.

      The best you can do is promote freedom, speak your mind and try to keep them from taking your rights away. Live life as you feel you should with the freedoms you feel you should have. Deal with the consequences as they come.

    54. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans seem to be divided between hawkish types who want to interfere with other countries militarily and the rest who don't want to be the world's policemen.

      "The world's policeman" concept needs to be put to bed- If we were actually taking that role, we'd have stepped into and stopped several million-plus casualty genocides in Africa over the last couple of decades, and America hasn't because there's nothing in it for American financial interests. I'm not saying America actually should or should not be involved there, but in general, if it ain't to protect or to help someone's cash cow, you can bet your ass that we won't go there. Nearly all of our military actions over the last 20 years (and more) have taken place to ensure the economic viability of a small number of American industries.

      No offense, but "World's Policeman", my ass.

    55. Re:Great country you have over there by mi · · Score: 1

      They were stopped without probable cause for a crime repeatedly, which is enough.

      Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this. Which "crime"? Are you saying, Border Patrol are investigating crimes other than illegal border-crossings?

      I don't know all the details.

      It seems like you don't know any details. Which, somehow, does not prevent you from spouting FUD about "harassment"...

      The AZ police are only really bad in Maricopa County, where Arpaio has his lair

      And do you know any details about that?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    56. Re:Great country you have over there by mi · · Score: 1
      Until I got my citizenship, I too carried my "green" card with me at all times... You are supposed to and I did not find it to be particularly burdensome.

      Nobody really asked me about it, though. Not in Boston, anyway. Maybe, because they don't have a problem with rampant immigration violations by Ukrainians over there...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    57. Re:Great country you have over there by chihowa · · Score: 2

      I see how I could have misinterpreted the "riches" reference, and I apologize for that.

      I still don't entirely agree with you though. I feel that it's in the best interest of the US to partake in a little introspection. I don't mean that we should become fully isolationist, but I think we should get our own house in order before we overly concern ourselves with giving advice to others. We need to convince our own government to behave in-line with American values before we try to convince others to do so.

      In fact, it would be nice if perhaps the rest of the world had something to offer to help us through these trying times. (I'm not talking about money here, either!) Our government actions over the last decade have squandered international goodwill toward us, so most of what we see from the rest of the world is hostility. Your post was actually quite beautiful and uncharacteristically positive for a non-American talking about the US.

      Anyway, my point is that perhaps we need to spend a bit more time tackling point 1 from your post before we even attempt to move on to the international relations parts of your post. Like most people throughout the world, most Americans are very good people and if the US government represented the interests of the people again, everything else would fall into place.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    58. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "I used to travel to the UK quite regularly. I will probably never return, now"

      Nor will I. My 'investor' tried to blackball my name in Australia over a couple thousand dollars (of which I still fully intend to repay once these lawsuits are over with.)

      Not only do you not get privacy, but assholes over there will flat-out lie about what you've done in order to get business you created diverted over to them.

      Plus their banksters are more corrupt than the USA banksters.

      Only thing I'd go back to the UK for is to fuck a couple of cute bois and a few slutty girls I met while in Eton/Dorney.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    59. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Did you read what I said? I didn't advocate the UK as a better place, but as a convenient place to get EU citizenship to go to other countries in the EU that are better. "

      You could've picked a whole fucking other better country. Like Germany, or Norway.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    60. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first)"

      Wrong. Royal Park in Australia with Yellowstone happening a few months afterwards. Source: I'm a former Parks and Recreations Ranger (18 months service.)

      "we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity"

      Only in the areas you don't really want to live in, excepting a few parts of California, Arizona, Texas, and most of the Appalachian mountain range.

      "some lovely people."

      SOME is the key word here.

      "We have some fantastic cultural things"

      Almost every last one a bastardization of things from other cultures, right down to the current form of Christianity.

      "It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place to everyone else."

      It's an equal shame that you espouse the benefits of America while you sit on your ass and do nothing to change the government or force it into submission.

      "Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough."

      You should speak for yourself, first, Sir.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    61. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Border Patrol/DHS can legally stop and harass you within 100 miles of the country border, search you without warrant, etc. Guess where Arizona falls in line? Almost the entirety of the state.

      Ain't no 'border' to protect, they're just moving everything inland to begin racial profiling and furtherance of the prison-industrial complex (like Mississippi has already done and has been doing since the mid-90s.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    62. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "As someone who has moved to the US only about four years ago, I can say that it still is a great country. There is still the possibility to fix the government's wrongdoings - and there are really great people here in the US."

      As someone that's been here for 31 years - take off your blinders already. You're sorely misinformed about the reality of this nation.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    63. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "The First Amendment was a dead letter until the 1940s-1950s."

      Back to history class for you and those that modded you up. Benjamin Franklin and our other Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at your words.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    64. Re:Great country you have over there by IICV · · Score: 1

      The border patrol considers everything within a hundred miles of any coast or national border to be under its jurisdiction.

      Here's a map of what that looks like. Note that it completely covers pretty much all of the major population centers.

    65. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 1, Informative

      "The amount of poverty (or near-poverty) here compared to my home country (Australia) astounds me. Huge portions of the population barely getting by...the run-down infrastructure etc. Not to say there's not nice areas too ... but it's really inconsistent."

      Welcome to our lack of forced-by-law nationalization of certain things, like healthcare and housing. You may have higher taxes and such in AUS, but you're actually better off than we are.

      " Education seems a bit lacking too "

      For America? Education has gone downhill since the early 90s. What I learned back in the 80s and 90s most new adults today don't know about, and it shows.

      "On top of that, I don't feel any more (or less) free here than in Australia."

      Wait a couple of years. Bet you'll change that train of thought FAST.

      " The US is also far more censored - it's actually quite hilarious seeing what they blur out or beep out on TV here."

      Welcome to part of the religious right takeover. What were you saying about freedom, again?

      "Ironically, even though rights are arguably more strongly protected, on paper, in the US than Australia, it also seems that they are more regularly violated or infringed upon in the US too."

      And that's due to the sudden drop in the education system. Civics and government courses are being wiped out almost as fast as classes on cursive handwriting.

      "I do feel more 'monitored' here. More subject to suspicion, identification, verification."

      Welcome to 1940's Germany again. You thought we got rid of this shit after WWII? Fuck no, Communism was right behind it. Better learn you some McCarthy.

      "Every man and his dog asks you for ID or the ubiquitous SSN"

      Because if we don't verify your identity and you do something bad, it's us on the hook more than you.

      "I was prevented from doing basic things like buy some over-the-counter cold medicine (because I didn't have a US driver license ... they wouldn't accept a passport, even a US passport!) or open a checking account at a bank (because I have no credit record ... why does that matter when I'm not even trying to borrow any money!?)"

      Because they think you're going to smuggle shit out to make methamphetamines, and on top of that, no credit record = you're fucking useless to our current banking system which runs RAMPANT based upon debt.

      "Cops seem aggressive, paranoid and unfriendly here"

      You better read more US-based news. Cops are fucking scum of the earth here, low-IQ yokels with nowhere else to go in life. Their only chance of retirement is to violate you every which way they can and make their career look good. (See Christopher Dorner.)

      "It just feels ... very unwelcoming ... not like the America I expected."

      Bet 10:1 you bought into the bullshit your own country allowed the USA to advertise over there.

      "The other thing that really surprised me is the bloatedness and inefficiency of the government."

      This surprised you? Tell me, just how ignorant are you of world happenings? Here in America, before it was nixed almost across the board (like cursive handwriting classes,) we used to have a 'current events' class.

      "In the US, even getting a straight answer on what process you need to follow is hard!"

      Because we made that information worth money.

      "I love the ideals of America, but they differ greatly to the reality on the ground........ Can I just say that as someone who has just moved to the US four MONTHS (not years) ago, "

      No, you may not. You're not even educated properly about this country. Blame your own country for that, because they're in bed with us. That you couldn't see that means you are just as much of a fool as 80% of this country.

      Just speaking as a 31-year old NATIVE of the country. Your 4 months of DREAMS means nothing compared to a full-lifetime of living in this hellhole, across several states, and having done it all from prison time to poli

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    66. Re:Great country you have over there by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "There is still the possibility to fix the government's wrongdoings"

      Take your blinders off - that won't happen without extreme bloodshed against the entirety of the government staff, from alphabet agencies to the military to the local police.

      And I bet you won't bother doing so. Which means you're part of the problem.

      At least I earned my felonies standing up for you immigrants and the rest of the native population.

      Sacrifice some freedom to gain more freedom, or shut the fuck up.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    67. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except for the whole language thing, whih was also part of his comment. For a guy on a geek website, you don't really "do" reading comprehension, do you?

    68. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you owe someone thousands of dollars and are surprised that he takes you to court? That and the rest of your post make it clear you're a real winner. Which prison colony did you come from again?

    69. Re:Great country you have over there by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      Donate money to the ACLU, EFF...

      And the NRA. Don't neglect America's longest-standing civil rights organization.

    70. Re:Great country you have over there by unassimilatible · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The amount of poverty (or near-poverty) here compared to my home country (Australia) astounds me. Huge portions of the population barely getting by...the run-down infrastructure etc. Not to say there's not nice areas too ... but it's really inconsistent. You don't see that at home (due no doubt in part to a more progressive tax structure and universal medical/housing safety-nets)

      In a word, bullshit. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, even more so than most of Western Europe, more so than Australia. Hell, half the country doesn't even pay taxes.

      Unfortunately, the main function of government in the US has become the opposite of the original Lockean purpose of the social contract - i.e., separating citizens from their wealth and giving it to others, while taking a huge cut. We have 45 million fucking people on food stamps! TWICE the population of Australia!

      And what have we gotten for it? One of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, said the worst thing you could do for the poor is to make them comfortable, lest they not want to escape it. Our "poor" in the US have cable TV and cellphones and are suffering from diabetes due to their obesity. Just enough to keep them voting for the Party of Handouts, exactly as planned...

      --
      Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    71. Re:Great country you have over there by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      "I must say, having lived in Europe, Turkey and in spent some time in other countries, the US is still the country where I feel most "free" - that doesn't mean it is free, but it is to show how "unfree" you can feel in other places on this planet. Let's just make the US again the "Country of Ms Liberty""

      Well, some places you must've lived... I've been in almost all European countries (yes, including the UK, since some - including the British - still think of it as something attached to Europe, not really part of it, anyway...), been living in some for shorter-longer periods, and I'm also spending quite some time in the U.S., plus, I'm planning to move there next year for a longer period. Yet, in light of all that, I still have to say that there are a number of European countries which are much better to live in, then the U.S. It's not a question of freedom or democracy, they all have that - although the interpretation sometimes diverges a bit -, it's about everyday stuff, living, getting around, dealing with legalities&paperwork, people, and so on and so forth. But wait, I'm not saying the U.S. can't be nice, why would I be there so much if it weren't, I'm only trying to point out that the "freedom" reason you gave above is a major load of crap.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    72. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would take it a step further and say that, ultimately, you may need to renounce your citizenship due to the way taxation works in the US. The US is one of two countries in the world that taxes based on citizenship as opposed to residency. This obviously can not only complicate (and cost) your financial affairs but also raise important questions regarding "no taxation without representation" and/or "double-taxation".

      Additionally, due to the current FATCA legislation being implemented worldwide for the IRS, many US citizens are having their financial accounts closed in their country of residence. Imagine having all of your accounts closed and being unable to open one. See isaacbrocksociety.ca for more.

      I left 13 years ago (for Europe) and have started thinking more and more about renouncing - at this point, it has become more of a burden than is worthwhile - and I don't get much from it - other than the occasional trip back.

    73. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Go ahead. Get your German citizenship and then try to be a dual citizen. Oh wait, you mean you can't be a US-German dual citizen? But if you'd gone to the UK and gotten citizenship there, you could have worked and lived indefinitely in Germany and retain your US citizenship? How's that going to work out for you? And what about language requirements? Are you required to learn German to become a German citizen?

      Yeah, you really thought that through, and you didn't even bother to read about the language thing. It's easier to find a job in the UK for someone that only speaks American English than any other EU country, which is why I mentioned language in the first place.

    74. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      ex-citizens have a harder time as visitors than non-citizens, and they can revoke your renouncment if they wish. non-citizens are rarely double-taxed because you can effectively deduct foreign taxes. You mainly have to pay taxes only on US-income (residual rental property, like me, a nice US house if the children or grandchildren ever want to move to the "homeland").

    75. Re:Great country you have over there by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I may have made the mistake of comparing only Federal income tax rates. In Australia, the first $18,000 you earn in a year is tax-free (i.e. our lowest tax bracket is 0%, applying from $1-$18000), whereas in the US, your lowest tax bracket is non-zero. Similarly, the top US Federal tax bracket is a good 10% lower than Australia's top bracket, and kicks in at a significantly higher income.

      So based on those two things that I knew from personal experience, I made the simple judgement that Australia had a more progressive system (lower income people taxed less, higher income people taxed more) than the US (which has a flatter curve).

      However Australia doesn't have State income taxes. Additionally, you have to factor in the complexities of various tax deductions and offsets (in both countries) which will affect the ACTUAL tax payable. Just looking at the brackets is far from the full picture in any tax system. So I apologise - seems I overly simplified the system and made a hasty and incorrect judgement. Your statistic that half the country doesn't pay tax would indicate that the lack of a 0% tax bracket in the US is largely irrelevant - lower income people end up actually owing zero once all is said and done.

      I do have the feeling that at the other end of the scale, the rich pay less tax in the US than in Australia, though. The difference isn't huge (Australia isn't like Norway with its 65%+ brackets) but it's there. Also the distribution of ~wages~/income in Australia is much flatter. Minimum wage is $15/hr which equates to approximately $32,000/year for a full time position. So anyone with a full time job in Australia is paying at least SOME tax.

    76. Re:Great country you have over there by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Europe. Pretty much anywhere in the EU. Eco industries are growing rapidly and we definitely lack good engineers in that area.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    77. Re:Great country you have over there by Opportunist · · Score: 3

      Very sad, but very true.

      After WW2, a lot of people from around here went to the US, if they only halfway could, they did. It was THE country to be. Everything was huge and everyone could make their fortune. The land of the free, home of the brave (or was it the other way 'round? Doesn't matter, either was true). Freedom that you never knew before, with opportunities unparalleled anywhere else. I actually know two people who went over pretty much penniless and hit it big. With hard work, persistence and the will to risk a bit. That was the american dream. Being poor meant that you were lazy, that you weren't willing to put your money where your mouth was, to work. Anyone working hard could make a good living, and working hard AND smart could make you rich. The promise that good, hard work will get its reward held true.

      It's over. Been over for a while, but now even the last glimmer, aka "freedom", has been extinguished. Working doesn't get you anywhere anymore, "working poor" is no longer an oxymoron, it's the bitter reality for more and more people, working 2 or even 3 jobs just to barely make ends meet. Poor is no longer a matter of being lazy (even though it's still sadly seen as such), it's a matter of not being able to afford the "right" schools. The gap between have and have-not is growing by the minute, and the amount of people on the have-not side is growing dramatically.

      And people start to lose the illusion that they can actually escape that treadmill, like they could in the "good ol' days". Where Jimmy Poorborn could hope that he will one day, with hard work, climb out of the sewers and, even if he won't make it to college, his kids will and they will have a better life. Today, people look at themselves and notice that they will never, no matter how much energy they waste on it, get beyond the bare minimum, and that the same lot is reserved for their kids.

      That's the american nightmare of today.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    78. Re:Great country you have over there by RoboJ1M · · Score: 2

      Come back to England, all is forgiven. ;)
      I'll stick the kettle on.

    79. Re:Great country you have over there by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Did you read what I said? I didn't advocate the UK as a better place, but as a convenient place to get EU citizenship to go to other countries in the EU that are better. "

      You could've picked a whole fucking other better country. Like Germany, or Norway.

      Except for the rather unfortunate fact that Norway is not a member of the EU?

      ;-)

      - Jesper

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    80. Re:Great country you have over there by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 2

      It's easier to find a job in the UK for someone that only speaks American English than any other EU country, which is why I mentioned language in the first place.

      In that respect Scandinavia is a pretty good bet too. Everybody learns English from the 2nd grade, business and higher education are often using English as their main language, and there are a lot of English-speaking employees already.

      - Jesper

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    81. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That isn't really a problem, as Norway is still a member og the Shengen-agreament area, and have open borders and free flow of workers to and from EU-countries.

    82. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My girl friend moved to US and has been calling and trying to convince me to move there for the last three years. Even though I wanted to marry her at some point, I gave up on her just because of the country he chose. If she had moved to Canada I may have followed.

      That's because I don't like to be involved with a country that has started/been involved in at least 50 wars in a century, invaded who knows how many countries, is abusing world economy, kills thousands of civilians (sometimes tens of thousands) per year, you should expect anyone to point a gun on you, and let's forget the privacy.

    83. Re:Great country you have over there by Buzer · · Score: 1

      You will still need to learn the language if you want citizenship.

    84. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont need to know the language to get citizenship in any scandinavan country.

    85. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not a substantial difference in "freedom" between nations in most of the developed world; there are some differences, like libel laws in Britain or drug laws in the Netherlands, but these are not terribly dramatic. You'll be pretty much equally "free" in most developed nations.

      Australia isn't a big country. Population-wise, it's comparable with the states of New York or Florida. You shouldn't expect the government of a country with nearly fifteen times the population of Australia to be nearly as flexible or efficient. Nor is Australia socially perfect; as you're probably well aware, the indigenous population lags behind the European one in almost every metric of health, education or quality of life, often to a degree unique in the developed world (it's highly unusual in a developed country for any minority ethnic group to lag the majority in life expectancy by more than a decade, for example).

      I'm not saying this to knock Australia; Australia is just different, and meaningfully comparing it to America is in a lot of ways problematic. An an American expat, I don't feel that America is really slipping behind so much as other nations are catching up, and this is a good thing.

    86. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not scratching their heads, they know why. When you're spending more on coming up with new imaginative ways of killing people than the rest of the world combined you need to actually use all that stuff from time to time.

    87. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Plus their banksters are more corrupt than the USA banksters.' That from a citzen of a nation that gets the cia and NSA do help in their bankers corruption.

    88. Re:Great country you have over there by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      The only point I would disagree with is point 3. we are trillions in debt, we should not be spreading our riches until that debt is worked down and our jobless /homeless issue is resolved. Once we are back in the black things wil be different but we cannot go on with major cities going bankrupt and china owning us through debt.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    89. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do in Finland, at least.

    90. Re:Great country you have over there by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      except for the entire intelligence community believed saddam had WMDs, I didnt, most on this blog didnt, but the entire western intelligence did. They were proven wrong but to say no one believed it is revisionist history.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    91. Re:Great country you have over there by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the ACLU is not an org I can trust anymore. Lately it seems they only fight for minority rights, not civil rights. The EFF has been getting most my donation money these days

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    92. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "The World's Mall Cop", then?

    93. Re:Great country you have over there by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      I'm from the UK, it's become a police state. I left and I'd not recommend anyone live in London.

      The countryside in the UK is nice but it's not so easy to find jobs there.

      If you actually care about freedom and can stand to learn German you might like Germany. They are strong believers in civil rights as they are still going though the backlash from WW2 domestic spying. Germans also have this great habit that they do what they say they are going to do.

    94. Re:Great country you have over there by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      A "rich" person in NY (rich by the books, not by living ability) can pay over 60% of their money in taxes. between state- federal - local -city -and other taxes it can easily add up to over 60%. Hell I was only making 45K as of last year and payed 49% (more if you could sales tax and other taxes) and 45K in NY is barely getting by.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    95. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe in individual freedom and you're going to any Nordic country (unlikely combination I know) then please bring a many guns and ammunition as you can smuggle through. It is increasingly likely we're going to have revolutions and civil wars here soon although the rest of western Europe might still beat us to it.

      Please remember us if you end up in Russia. Stamped AK-47's are a-okay.

    96. Re:Great country you have over there by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      You have come to your senses, but your government never will.

    97. Re:Great country you have over there by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the USA has a fucking stupid idea that proves be be an utter disaster then nearly any idiot in Australian politics is still going to adopt it because it comes from the USA so it must be good. We even copied the things that made the 1980s California electricity system a corrupt joke - and we did it after Enron collapses and everyone actually in the USA knew better than to copy them.
      So as an Australian I wouldn't recommend Australia if you are trying to get away from US idiocy, because it's going to follow after you in a few years and probably be amplified. We treat the shit they throw away as useless as if it is golden tablets of wisdom.

    98. Re:Great country you have over there by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It seems that the Greatness of the US is directly tied to how much benefit other countries can glean from her.

      That's how it goes when the criteria is impressing others. If there's other criteria (eg. just getting shit done instead of being "great") then it doesn't matter so much. For instance, Norway does a lot for it's citizens (apparently - I've never been there) but nobody calls it "great".

    99. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finland isn't in Scandinavia, so it's not entirely relevant. If you want to include Finland, you can say Nordic countries.

    100. Re:Great country you have over there by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Sweden might have good opportunities for both of you. Lots of software development happening in/around Stockholm. Environmental stuff is also pretty big there*.

      Bear in mind that it's a very socialist country, so if you don't like paying taxes or having to register your address with the government, it might not be your cup of tea. It is also almost fanatical about being egalitarian.

      And winter in Sweden just plain sucks.

      On the plus side, the air and water are clean, public services are low-cost and easily accessible, and so long as you mind the rules and declare your taxes on time, the government pretty well leaves you alone. And you get 5 or 6 weeks paid vacation a year, so you can go someplace warm for the worst part of the winter (which is what we usually do).

      Summer in Sweden can be totally awesome, BTW.

      Nearly everyone speaks passable-to-excellent English (the main exception being immigrants who moved there as adults from countries where English wasn't spoken or taught in the schools), so the language barrier is not what it might be in some places, although if you you plan on staying a long time, you should really try to learn at least basic Swedish. (This has been the hardest thing for me, which is odd given that I already had a fair command of German and a couple other languages when I moved there, but there you are.)

      It's also quite possibly the best place on the planet to have and raise kids.

      --American who has lived in Sweden since 2007.

      *("There" rather than "here" because I'm currently travelling overseas.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    101. Re:Great country you have over there by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You may have higher taxes and such in AUS

      The US film industry doesn't think so which is why you see Australian locations in movies set in the USA. Because the health care comes out of the tax instead of being extra the total amount that a company has to spend per employee is lower than in the US. It's quite ironic since US right wingers like to blame costs on unions but the unions in Australia have far more power than the US ones and the total costs per employee are still a lot lower.

    102. Re:Great country you have over there by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I find Australians relaxed, friendly, respectful and fair. I find Americans a mix with some really nice people but give them any authority and they become confrontational, arbitrary, and even cruel.

      The classic example is customs at the airport. Australian rules about what you can bring in are painfully complex but the customs guy explained them to me in a clear and respectful way, because that guy was respectful to me I was respectful back. At the US border they practically try to provoke me for entertainment, they really seem to believe I'm there to steal their jobs or murder their children or something.

      Given the choice I'd much rather visit Australia.

    103. Re:Great country you have over there by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      That's what most Americans who've never left the US would say. In practice, there are few places worse. You'd have to work hard to land somewhere worse. China is better than the US, so long as you don't spend time and money opposing the government.

      My Chinese friends who live in China certainly don't think it's better. Some of them desire more political freedom, specifically a true multi-party system that would offer some choices. I hear a ton of complaints about corruption in government officials. In the US this gets punished enough that there seems to be a big incentive against it as the fear of getting caught is high. In China, few government officials fear getting caught and they have the idea that the odds are that they either won't get caught or if they don't go too far with the corruption, they can just bribe their way out of it. My friends also have expressed some fear about food contamination with the idea that those responsible will likely never be punished, even if people die from it.

    104. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why do these yanks insist on being involved in every spark of conflict that arises?"

      I can tell you exactly why this happens, our corrupt government is owned by the corporations and they want to test their latest high tech weapon systems so they can sell them to the armies of the world for much profit. It's their catalog you see.

    105. Re:Great country you have over there by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's what most Americans who've never left the US would say. In practice, there are few places worse. You'd have to work hard to land somewhere worse. China is better than the US, so long as you don't spend time and money opposing the government.

      Just so happens that I'm in China right now, and I can confirm this. Lots of Chinese have critical things to say about the Chinese government, Communist Party, and assorted politicians. Basically, as long as you don't advocate actually overthrowing the government or kicking out the Party, you can say pretty much whatever you want. Which (in theory) is not that different from the US.

      And after reading the umpteenth news story this morning about US drones/drone strikes, it occurred to me that I actually feel safer here than I would in the US right now.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    106. Re:Great country you have over there by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Yes I've heard that people in the US are not aware of what's happening in the rest of the world.

      What rest of the world? You mean there's something outside the US?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    107. Re:Great country you have over there by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      <rhetorical_question>You've never lived in Arizona, have you?</rhetorical_question>

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    108. Re:Great country you have over there by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      "The world's policeman" concept needs to be put to bed- If we were actually taking that role, we'd have stepped into and stopped several million-plus casualty genocides in Africa over the last couple of decades, and America hasn't because there's nothing in it for American financial interests.

      Bingo.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    109. Re:Great country you have over there by odigity · · Score: 1

      Best terrestrial option:

      http://freestateproject.org/

      Disclosure: I am early mover #488.

      Of course, if you've got space capabilities, by all means.

    110. Re:Great country you have over there by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      "Did you read what I said? I didn't advocate the UK as a better place, but as a convenient place to get EU citizenship to go to other countries in the EU that are better.

      You could've picked a whole fucking other better country. Like Germany, or Norway.Uh, Norway isn't an EU member state.

      Minor problem - Norway isn't an EU member.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    111. Re:Great country you have over there by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If you believe in individual freedom and you're going to any Nordic country (unlikely combination I know) then please bring a many guns and ammunition as you can smuggle through. It is increasingly likely we're going to have revolutions and civil wars here soon although the rest of western Europe might still beat us to it.

      Please remember us if you end up in Russia. Stamped AK-47's are a-okay.

      Anders? Are they letting you post from your cell?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    112. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with just learning German first?

    113. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a nice US house if the children or grandchildren ever want to move to the "homeland"

      Why would they want that?

    114. Re:Great country you have over there by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Benjamin Franklin Bache, arrested for editing a newspaper may have agreed with the AC however.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    115. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, only the U.S. and U.K. intelligence community 'believed' that, and only because the governments of those countries wanted the public to think that, in order to justify the war they were planning.

    116. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of them desire more political freedom, specifically a true multi-party system that would offer some choices.

      I assume the same is true for many Americans.

    117. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a United Statsian I can say that I once held us in esteem too. Now American exceptionalism, hyper-partisan politics, and Orwellian jingoism are the new norm. My wife and I have been seriously considering moving to another country while the getting is good. Any suggestions for an application developer and an environmental engineer?

      Australia. They will pay you to come live there if have tech skillz.

    118. Re:Great country you have over there by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Thank you for illustrating my point so well. I lived in a western European country when the Iraq war started, and nobody I knew believed that WMD stuff. Neither did the leaders of my country and its neighboring countries (with access to their respective intelligence services) - they all voted against an UN mission. You've been punked by the post-9/11 patriotic media. This is not revisionism - this is the truth your media failed to tell you.

    119. Re:Great country you have over there by kheldan · · Score: 1

      so long as you don't spend time and money opposing the government

      Yeah, sure. Because it's not like I've read stories about Chinese citizens who tried to just have the law enforced, only to be arrested, declared insane, put in a mental institution, pumped full of drugs every day, until they recanted their legal claims and justifiable demands to have a law enforced, then were released. Or, Tiananmen Square. Or, being a Westerner living in China; talk about having a target on your back! Sure thing pal, sounds like a goddamned paradise compared to here, I'll sell everything I own and emigrate right away!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    120. Re:Great country you have over there by mi · · Score: 1

      Border Patrol/DHS can legally stop and harass you within 100 miles of the country border

      Despite asking several times, I'm yet to see someone elaborate on what "harassment" actually means in this context...

      search you without warrant, etc.

      That would seem wrong — are they actually doing that (searching people without warrant and reasonable cause)? If so, is not it most ironic, that they report to the Democratic Administration, who continues to enjoy reliable support from the people affected — while Republicans like Arpaio (see above) get all the blame?

      Ain't no 'border' to protect

      If the border is only 100 miles away, then the above statement sounds incorrect...

      they're just moving everything inland to begin racial profiling

      You'll have a hard time convincing me, "racial profiling" is automatically a bad thing... If 99% of illegal border-crossers in an area are Latino-looking, then 99% (give or take) of the investigated suspects should also be Latino-looking. Sure, it is not the fault of numerous Latino-looking legal residents and citizens, that they have the same facial features as the illegal ones. But it is not the fault of the law-enforcement either...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    121. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      And I've read "stories" about the US government putting American citizens into concentration camps, putting people through treatment for syphilis, but lying about it and really sentencing them to death with unconsented medical trials. I read about the US throwing a tantrum because they can't get their hands on whistleblowers. Innocent US citizens being shot on their own land from unannounced no-knock raids. US citizens getting property confiscated because it's "suspected" of being related to drugs, with no due process. I've read lots of stories about the US. Maybe you should read a few more.

      Or, being a Westerner living in China; talk about having a target on your back!

      I know a number of people who are engineers overseeing their company's production in China. Seems to be a pretty good job. What "target" do they have on them? At best, it's a "fleece me" target when they go to the shops. Nothing has price tags on it, and everything is a haggle, which is the opposite of the US, and one major complaint by inflexible tourists.

    122. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I just say that as someone who has just moved to the US four MONTHS (not years) ago, I echo this sentiment completely. I can tell that this place used to be the America that some people still think it is - the most prosperous, fair and free society on earth. And the people are still some of the friendliest you will meet. But gee, it's going downhill fast.

      I'm sorry to say this, but your frame of reference is simply too limited. When I enter the USA I meet a guy with an machine gun who gives me an interrogation. In Western European countries, I meet a guy with a smile who gives me a warm welcome. In the USA, as a tourists/stranger I am treated with distrust, and threatened with my life if I happen to wander into the wrong property. In Western Europe, as a tourist/stranger I am met with interested and treated as a welcome opportunity to learn about other cultures.

      I realize the USA may seem welcoming and free when you come from a country that has actual, active oppression, but in the list of 'free and welcoming' countries, I would put the USA all the way at the bottom end.

    123. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My Chinese friends who live in China certainly don't think it's better.

      The grass is always greener is something that Americans don't have anymore. The American arrogance doesn't let us see the same here. There's more economic freedom in China. The problem is that there are many more opportunities, but even more people fighting for the same opportunity.

      The corruption there is not worse than the US, just different. The government jobs don't pay well, so you are paid in power. You are expected to demand bribes, like tips in the US are optional at restaurants. Everyone knows this, everyone expects it. The only problem is when someone who doesn't know the rules gets thrown in. Bribery is a capital crime, so you could be executed for doing the equivalent of leaving a waitress a tip. There are lots of rules around it, but none of them written. That allows the system to be protrayed as lawless and corrupt. But it isn't, it's just that the rules are hidden, so someone on the outside might not understand them.

      My friends also have expressed some fear about food contamination with the idea that those responsible will likely never be punished, even if people die from it.

      That's a good case. They'll execute someone that caused China to lose face. When people die from it, like contaminated baby formula, then people do die. I didn't follow the lead toys to the end, but they did sentence someone to death over it. That you don't understand the rules doesn't mean they aren't there.

    124. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's not my job to force my values on my children, that's the job of Conservatives. I give them tools and let them choose. They may choose fascism. Why burn a bridge, when you don't have to?

    125. Re:Great country you have over there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't choose Germany because it requires you to renounce other citizenships. Instead, if I got citizenship elsewhere (in the EU), I could still live and work in Germany indefinitely, without having to give up my other citizenships. Yes, that's not supposed to be how it works, but I'm going to collect the most citizenships I can, and pass them on so my children will have maximum choice and opportunity. At least until the evil New World Order comes and when everywhere is a single country, and we can move freely. Sad how the conservative/libertarian boogieman is more libertarian than what we have now.

    126. Re:Great country you have over there by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's become a police state -- though there are movements towards that. (There are sometimes movements away from that, e.g. fixing stop-and-search powers.)

      Mostly, it's just become a generally crap state. Too many selfish people (including lots of MPs), too much obsession over money. And far too much scapegoating of the EU (if the UK leaves, with no-one to blame I wonder how long it will take before the people realise the problem "Europe", but Britain?).

      I was born here, studied CS in London, and now have a job working for a scientific research charity in London (which I very much enjoy). If it wasn't for that I'd have left. As it is, I've decided to leave next Spring or early Summer, when my current project should be completed. Germany or the Netherlands would be my preference (ich spreche ein bischen Deutsch...).

    127. Re:Great country you have over there by xaxa · · Score: 1

      You'll have a hard time convincing me, "racial profiling" is automatically a bad thing... If 99% of illegal border-crossers in an area are Latino-looking, then 99% (give or take) of the investigated suspects should also be Latino-looking. Sure, it is not the fault of numerous Latino-looking legal residents and citizens, that they have the same facial features as the illegal ones. But it is not the fault of the law-enforcement either...

      I'm not American, don't live there, but a similar thing happens with black teenagers being stopped by the police in London on suspicion of selling drugs. In theory, they're either supposed to stop random people, or have a reasonable suspicion of crime. In practise, black teenagers are many times more likely to have been stopped by the police.

      It breeds resentment and distrust of the police. The solution is not to stop lots of people, but to work out better ways of knowing who to stop, and stop fewer people.

    128. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest u all try North Korea. Good grief, yes the USA has its share of issues but its still the greatest country to live in. If u r a citizen get off ur ass and become involved in electing the right people vice career politicians. All this whining will get u nowhere.

    129. Re:Great country you have over there by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      I mean the people, as in ... the people you meet in your everyday life. I fully agree with you that the 'official' side of the country is far from welcoming. In fact I specifically mentioned cops. Same applies to immigration/customs officials at the border. But the average people you meet are nice.

      Mind you I live in the Midwest, in a small city, where people may be a bit more welcoming/friendly than in the big metropolises. As you say, I have my particular frame of reference which may or may not match your experiences. I've traveled widely through Europe and Asia as well and know what you mean.

    130. Re:Great country you have over there by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Free state project gets you to New Hampshire. All your internet and email goes through the same providers. That doesn't help you unless you want a war of independence against the USA.

    131. Re:Great country you have over there by mi · · Score: 1

      In practise, black teenagers are many times more likely to have been stopped by the police.

      If there are also much more likely to be dealing drugs, then the practice makes sense. If they are not, then it does not...

      It breeds resentment and distrust of the police.

      This is, indeed, a side-effect, which needs to be taken into account, when devising police strategy. It still does not mean, such profiling is evil or even wrong — as I said, if Black teens are more likely to be carrying drugs, they should be more likely to be stopped.(As long as drug-possession remains a crime, which is a separate topic).

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    132. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you misspelled Jellystone... you are not smarter than the averaaaage bear...

    133. Re: Great country you have over there by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Please read posts before replying.

    134. Re:Great country you have over there by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I found this, which I won't bother to rewrite: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/misue-stop-search-powers

      "Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) says that most (30) of the 43 forces in England and Wales do not understand how to use stop and search powers effectively nor the impact their use has on the communities being policed."

      "only 9% of the 1.2m stop-and-searches that take place every year led to an arrest"

      "Office figures show that black people are still seven times more likely to be searched on the street than white people."

      A different article said black people are three times more likely to be arrested (note: not charged) than white people. I suspect black people carrying small quantities of drugs (or committing other minor offences) are more likely to be arrested than white people, but I don't know. here we are: "Black people are six times more likely to be arrested than white people for drug offences and 11 times more likely to be imprisoned, according to new research claiming to show the racial bias of the criminal justice system." (the figure for the US is three times more likely to be arrested, 10 times more likely to be jailed).

      (As long as drug-possession remains a crime, which is a separate topic).

      It's closely related. The UK has criminalised several drugs popular among a particular community -- most recently qat. Alcohol, however, continues to cause the most trouble.

    135. Re: Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did actually know that (I used to live there). I was just assuming that most US-based posters wouldn't make the distinction, but I probably shouldn't have. My bad.

    136. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all it took is one man, Bin Laden.

      And don't forget his friend Bin Invading Iraq.

      Google cannot find this quote now, but in the year 2000 Soros donated money to run against Bush Jr because when Bush was giving a speech to soldiers he said "We will bring freedom to [other countries]". All I can find now is the reelection of 2004.

    137. Re:Great country you have over there by doccus · · Score: 1

      The only place I know of where everybody speaks english (OK maybe not perfectly ;-) and has a hate on for government snooping, is Russia

    138. Re:Great country you have over there by doccus · · Score: 1

      ...Germans also have this great habit that they do what they say they are going to do.

      Holy mackerall.. they'd never tolerate Canada.. If I could just have ONE WEEK around people like that I could fix all my current issues..

    139. Re:Great country you have over there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear in mind that it's a very socialist country, so if you don't like paying taxes or having to register your address with the government, it might not be your cup of tea. It is also almost fanatical about being egalitarian.

      US has much higher taxes, it is just that the taxpayers get fewer benefits from those taxes than Swedes get.

      Add up your federal, state and local taxes and see what that gets you.

      The US mail postal service and census doesn't record your address?

    140. Re:Great country you have over there by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      US has much higher taxes,

      My national tax rate here* is roughly double what it was in the US. Sweden also has a 25% GST.

      it is just that the taxpayers get fewer benefits from those taxes than Swedes get.

      That does seem to be the case, yes.

       

      Add up your federal, state and local taxes and see what that gets you.
       

      Perhaps having to do all that paperwork makes it seem like more, but it really is not.

      The US mail postal service and census doesn't record your address?

      AFAIK, the US Postal Service does not. The US Census takes place only once every ten years. In any case, these things are completely irrelevant to the matter of being required by law to register your current address with a central government authority (the Folkbokföring). IIRC, you're obliged to do so within 10 days of moving to a new residence. You are also required to have a national ID card here, and you cannot access any government services without it.

      You can't even pick up your mail here if you don't have a national ID card or passport issued by the government of Sweden or another EU or Schengen member state. US passport doesn't count, even with a Swedish-issued visa incorporating your photo attached. In theory, they're not even supposed to deliver mail to you if your name does not appear on the door and it's not a name that's registered to that address, but they do honour "c/o" addresses, and in practise there's some additional slack given in this regard.

      The point I'm trying to make is that the national government here knows who and where you are pretty much at all times, and that many if not most Americans who are accustomed to living semi-anonymously/semi-"off-grid" are likely to find this a bit uncomfortable. I know that I did when I first moved here.

      *(Yes, "here" now; flew home yesterday.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    141. Re:Great country you have over there by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Tell me when your country wakes up so I can spend money vacationing there again.

      I still remember when I didn't need a passport to take a trip to NYC for the weekend.

      Oh well ... I've been exploring more of my own country instead, Canada.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    142. Re:Great country you have over there by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Youtube for DHS stop.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    143. Re:Great country you have over there by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Wait, you think we appreciate your interference?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  3. And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where at least I know I'm free!

    1. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where at least I know I'm free!

      I know I'm free! The uniformed man pointing his gun at me told me so!

    2. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free is in beer or free as in speech? I think you meant the former.

    3. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live Free Or Cheap

    4. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      THIS POST VIOLATES YOUR GAG ORDER.
      We will be there soon to Re-Educate and relocate you.
      Have A Nice Day.

    5. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...free of basic human rights.

    6. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where at least I know I'm free!

      ...I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
      -- Robert Heinlein

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    7. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where at least I'm TOLD I'm free.

    8. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where at least I know I'm free!

      No, where you are forced to be free. It's completely mandatory, it's the worst kind of freedom.

    9. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by rve · · Score: 1

      Freedom is an illusion made possible by not wanting or expecting things you cannot or are not allowed to do or have.

      If your deepest desires are simple things, such as to own a house, a car or to visit Africa, there are steps you could take to make it happen, and you feel free. If your deepest desire is to be free from having infidels and immodest women around you, a libertarian society might feel much more stifling than a strict, traditional one.

      If your deepest desire is to be young again and get a second chance at your wasted youth, or to have been born as something else, you might feel horribly limited and constricted no matter where you are.

    10. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom to be recorded, fantastic

    11. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Aryden · · Score: 1

      +1

    12. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats defines freedom the polar opposite of what Islam is for the most. I wonder if Heinlein have had some interactions with Islam in his personal life. Oh, wait, he did wrote the Revolt 2100 and had apparently a strong position in the culture wars of the US. Would Heinlein see American Christianity equivalent to Islam as a counterpositions to freedom?

    13. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Not sure whether this answers your question directly, but Heinlein quotes from the Koran in several of his works, including Starship Troopers.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:And I'm proud to be an American... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Thats defines freedom the polar opposite of what Islam is for the most. I wonder if Heinlein have had some interactions with Islam in his personal life. Oh, wait, he did wrote the Revolt 2100 and had apparently a strong position in the culture wars of the US. Would Heinlein see American Christianity equivalent to Islam as a counterpositions to freedom?

      Heinlein was an individualist and social darwinist. Religion, regardless of its outer trappings was all pretty much the same to him -- a check on individuals and on the survival of the most successful. Since he also grew up in the bible belt, it's unlikely that he needed to look to Islam to foment his distaste for religious oppression. Christianity was anti-freedom enough.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  4. Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I applaud him for taking a stance against the snooping. Unfortune that he had to shut the service down though. Maybe he can move it offshore.

    1. Re:Applause by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe he can move it offshore.

      It is probably too late. The demand has already been issued.

      He cannot destroy anything, it has already been demanded by the feds and destroying it after it is requested will land him in jail.

      He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.

      The best he can do if he (as the business) attempt to fight it is to surrender the servers to a court-certified secure escrow company; they will make duplicates of every disk and hold both the originals and copies in limbo. If the government takes a copy while it is still in secure escrow then they run afoul of the courts, not like that worries most of them as there are many ways around it like writing a generic statement that it is urgent for undisclosed national security purposes.

      Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the soul searching was if he should take everything to an incineration company and burn it to white ash, potentially facing prison terms for doing so. Unless that happens, everything on the machine is still vulnerable to the $5 wrench attack.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:Applause by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately we don't know if it was legal snooping with a warrant, or illegal without. We do know that Ladar's rights have been seriously infringed in not being allowed to talk about the situation, so people are very right to be outraged.

    3. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately we don't know if it was legal snooping with a warrant

      Even if they had a warrant, that would not make it legal. In order for a warrant to be valid, they need things such as probable cause, and it needs to be specific. Some of the FISA court warrants, for instance, were simply ridiculous.

      This might even be another case of the government trying to get access to everyone's information by having the company install backdoors and such, which would affect innocents as well as 'criminals.'

    4. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although there is probably little that he can do legally, as the idea of legal means little to the people he is up against I hope he just gives a complete backup to someone in another country so that it can continue. He would need to be able to deny having given said backup...

    5. Re:Applause by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What good is outrage when it's not converted in to action, starting with voting for non-aligned candidates? On every election day all this 'outrage' will magically disappear. In fact, statistically speaking it never was bigger than a speck of dust. All the voters turn into zombies, doing what the TV tells them to do. This is a dead issue and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Applause by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of which is fundamentally illegal. THe longer we allow these activities under the FALSE color of law, the longer we will suffer the consequences.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Applause by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The core problem is that Lavabit got their security model wrong. With their scheme, the encrypted private key is stored on their servers, which means that the government need only demand that the unencrypted password for a user be logged somewhere whenever that user logs in, and then the government has access to all emails, past and present.

      Such a model is not significantly more secure than an unencrypted mail provider, because anyone capable of compromising the machine can capture that passphrase, and then the entire security model comes down like a house of cards. The only situation in which your data is more secure with such weak encryption is if you happen to not log in to the account while the server is compromised. Therefore, the only way to protect the users' data is to shut down the servers so that they cannot log in.

      Had they used a more paranoid security model—a proper client-side app to generate and store the keys and perform all decryption—then the private key would be stored on the user's machine, and would never be seen by the server. In that case, the only thing the government could do would be to demand that new messages to a particular user be stored off to the side in the clear, and it would not be possible to gain access to any existing messages.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Applause by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is, this is exactly the sort of thing free speech is supposed to be for. He's forced to violate his conscience or shut his business down and he cannot even expose the situation to sunlight. perhaps he can tell someone in the next cell about it using prisoner's raps.

      No speech could be more political than talking about exactly what your government is doing to you and what excuses it gives.

    9. Re:Applause by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even with all of that, the restraint of free speech makes the order illegal.

    10. Re:Applause by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While what you say is true, it misses the most important point, which is that Mr. Levison is not even allowed to tell us why he has to shut down. The problem isn't surveillance, the problem is secrecy about surveillance that prevents it from being properly discussed and evaluated.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wish i had mod points to give you

      captcha: idiotic

    12. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The core problem is that there is an Anglosaxon company. They can bully ANY anglosaxon company into submission. As soon as they say "national security", this is akin to displaying a KGB ID card signed by Felix Dshershinsky personally in the Soviet Union.

      Yeah, my dear Anglos, your freedoms have been destroyed on the alter of "money can buy muslim immigration" and "multi-culturalism". Now feel the warm fingers of your local KGB variant roaming in your little innocent asses. These warm fingers will examine you until you organize mass protests that walk up to your Anglo-KGB headquarters and demand to inspect the records. East Germans could do it, why can't you ?

      Are you more obedient and scared than the east German citizens of the GDR tyranny ? It seems so.

    13. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most software is so shittily insecure you don't need any cooperation from the developer other than the guy "operating under normal conditions". See the recent firefox pwnage by FBI/NSA.

      Which makes this entire thing kind of implausible. Maybe it is a ruse to trick us into thinking "servers can be made secure". Remember, these are seasoned military intelligence experts. They LOVE to play ruses and to brainfuck everybody they deal with.

    14. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This, I think, leads us to an hypothesis about what happened. Let's say he got a secret FISA order for a customer's (guess who) email. He replies and says
      sorry I cannot decrypt this without the passphrase. So the spooks say, "install a logger on your service for the next time he logs in, and that's
      an order." The nasty bit about FISA orders is you can't talk about them. He can't refuse the order, but they can't stop him from terminating the
      service, and thereby making the order moot. A beautiful gesture.

    15. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My only guess is they ordered him to install spyware. He could not tell us that or disobey the order but he could shut the system down.

    16. Re:Applause by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      What I find interesting about this is the fact that almost everybody speculating about it is presuming that whatever the government's actually doing is unconstitutional, and they're violating his First Amendment rights to hide the fact. Now, I'll be the first to admit that this is probably exactly what's happening, but there's always the chance that it isn't. And if it's not, then there's the distinct possibility that this is being done precisely so that we will come to that conclusion; something like a "reverse-Streisand effect."

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    17. Re:Applause by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you more obedient and scared than the east German citizens of the GDR tyranny ?

      We are more obedient, because our "KGB" is nowhere near as oppressive as that of GDR or USSR. Not yet, anyway. So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals. It may or may not get there — and the trends are scary, but it is still a long way to go to get there...

      Not that we can't make a fast leap forward (ahem) to cover the distance... If the IRS and other Federal departments have already been used to target opposition, what's to stop the "KGB" from being used the same way? Nothing — other than morals and scruples of the actual people there. Hardened FBI crime-fighters aren't quite the same as the IRS. But that, admittedly, is a weak defense...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:Applause by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Isn't it possible that rather than trying to get information currently on the service, the government was demanding the power to snoop in on any future e-mail coming through lavabit without telling the current customers? Seems like the current action would be more appropriate for that.

    19. Re:Applause by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bigger problem than you're giving it credit. For one thing, the people who are outraged are a small subset of voters. A much much bigger subset of voters that very minimally overlaps with that first subset are people who are paranoid. Paranoia always buys more votes than outrage at the government.

      That's also why it has little to do with independent candidates, in my opinion. People who vote for third party candidates are another small subset, maybe significantly overlapping with the outraged subset. In the event that the outraged group gets big enough to outweigh the paranoids, it won't matter third party or not, political parties want to win the next election more than they want to keep the government spying on you.

      Unfortunately, I don't see a way to make the paranoids grow a fucking brain and spinal cord. So maybe the best strategy would be to use paranoia against the government spy program. We need an updated version of 1984 maybe.

    20. Re:Applause by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was my immediate conclusion upon reading how the service worked. (Thanks, Google cache.) I mean, it's possible that it was something else, but that's by far the most obvious method of attack. The second method of attack would involve forcing him to turn over his SSL keys, which would have exactly the same effect, but more broadly (because everybody's passwords would get caught up in the honeypot). Either way, it's probably safe to say that in one way or another, the order demanded access to the password stream on the way in.

      That said, it's also possible that they demanded metadata logs of sent and received messages (from, to, sending hostname and IP, etc.) going forward, which would also be something that could be made moot by shutting the service down.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re:Applause by sjames · · Score: 1

      If his First Amendment rights have been violated, then the action is unconstitutional, full stop.

      If you're saying he might be making the whole thing up, there are easier ways to go out of business and the Feds shouldn't have made it so easy to make claims like this. For example, if there was no secret court we could quickly determine it was all made up by checking public records.

    22. Re:Applause by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And ISP owners and victims of terror attacks are being told the equivalent of "You didn't see nothin', did'ja?" With threat of imprisonment. That's closer to GDR/USSR.

    23. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the government is censoring him from speaking, which onto itself has violated the accepted translation of the 1st amendment

    24. Re:Applause by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If you're saying he might be making the whole thing up...

      No, I'm sure that something's happened and that the only recourse he feels appropriate is closing the business. However, there's always the possibility that the actual reason is less sinister and that he's embellishing the circumstances to put the government in the worst light possible. Do I think that's probably what's going on? No, but I do consider it worth mentioning.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    25. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you are giving credit to the enormous difference in street-protests in Germany vs the US regarding PRISM etc.

      There is a fundamental difference in the level and willingness to protest.

      Or ask any french farmer what it takes to take his tractor and dump a pile of shit on the lawn of the presidential palace.

    26. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, i think the real reason operations are "suspended" is because he no longer possesses the hardware the service was running on.

    27. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly what happened to hushmail.com in 2007, of course.
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/encrypted-e-mai/

    28. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals"

      Oh bullshit. Their targets are anyone who tries to reveal their violations of the law of the land.

    29. Re:Applause by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      In specific cases with warrants, that's normal. But all this warrantless stuff, or idiotic mass blanket warrants, that's all illegal, and thus gag orders are derivatively illegal.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    30. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The core problem is that Lavabit got their security model wrong. With their scheme, the encrypted private key is stored on their servers, which means that the government need only demand that the unencrypted password for a user be logged somewhere whenever that user logs in, and then the government has access to all emails, past and present.

      Such a model is not significantly more secure than an unencrypted mail provider, because anyone capable of compromising the machine can capture that passphrase, and then the entire security model comes down like a house of cards. The only situation in which your data is more secure with such weak encryption is if you happen to not log in to the account while the server is compromised. Therefore, the only way to protect the users' data is to shut down the servers so that they cannot log in.

      Had they used a more paranoid security model—a proper client-side app to generate and store the keys and perform all decryption—then the private key would be stored on the user's machine, and would never be seen by the server. In that case, the only thing the government could do would be to demand that new messages to a particular user be stored off to the side in the clear, and it would not be possible to gain access to any existing messages.

      Hand me your private encryption keys Mr. Secure Email Provider.

      Sorry I don't have them, they are generated on the computers of the end users.

      Well, OK then, can I have the metadata please?

    31. Re:Applause by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > The nasty bit about FISA orders is you can't talk about them

      Weren't we just talking about this?
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/21/1853212/when-the-nsa-shows-up-at-your-internet-company

      A while back there also a link in a recent story about a lawyer who was charged but it was illegal to disclose the charge / gag order. They documented how they filed an affidavit in secret. Can't find the link ... ;-(

      It's bullshit you can be charged but the charge can't be disclosed.

    32. Re:Applause by DeuceDaily · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. I know it's not the popular opinion on this to say fuck it, it's going to happen, but... Fuck it, it's going to happen. Government surveillance is going to continue. It's not just the US either, it's just part of playing in the big game now. Maybe we should focus on accepting it and getting some public oversight on the surveillance that is being done.

    33. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What good is outrage when it's not converted in to action, starting with voting for non-aligned candidates?

      Why wait? In another year the average American won't remember who did what. Start recall petitions now!

    34. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The truck transporting them to the secure escrow site was attacked by terrorists. I know! CRAZY! All of the data was destroyed. What can you do, really? Such a shame. Well, go fight them terrorists! Have fun! See you in Moscow... slugheads!"

    35. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only have his vague word as to what happened.

    36. Re:Applause by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The government put itself in the worst possible light. He just pointed. The government hasn't refuted anything, and we have nothing to indicate he's lying or embellishing.

    37. Re:Applause by gronofer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he could open-source his code, so that clone sites could be operated by others in less paranoid countries.

      ITAR would perhaps not be an issue as long as he is using only published encryption schemes.

    38. Re:Applause by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.

      You seem a little confused.

      ITAR only covers military equipment, ordnance and services. Perhaps I missed something, but servers and encrypted emails aren't included in the Munitions List which details stuff that can't be exported.

      N.B: IANAL

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    39. Re:Applause by sjames · · Score: 2

      Until the madness happened, such gag orders were rare and required very good reasons to get one (good enough that people generally would have agreed to keep quiet anyway) and generally carried an expiration date.

    40. Re:Applause by gronofer · · Score: 2

      The government now has enough laws and regulations that it can validly suspect practically anybody of being a "nasty criminal" any time it likes. If trial is inconvenient, they can always arrange to have you accidently shot by the arresting SWAT squad.

    41. Re:Applause by sjames · · Score: 1
      ,p>As AK Marc points out, the government has put itself in the worst possible light.

      It's also worth noting that this is the second attack on an anonymous mail system in a week.

    42. Re:Applause by countach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals"

      Sure. If you consider a whilsteblower like Snowden to be a nasty criminal, after Obama said previously that whistleblower's would be protected.

    43. Re:Applause by countach · · Score: 1

      And maybe reality is an illusion and we're all living in the Matrix. Actually, I don't think your possibility is worth mentioning.

    44. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals.

      That's the problem. The "Patriot" Act has been used for many, many other things than terrorism investigations.

    45. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trick some different feds/leos into destroying it by mistake, ahaha.

      How is up to your black hat genius immagination.

    46. Re:Applause by mi · · Score: 1

      Their targets are anyone who tries to reveal their violations of the law of the land.

      Even if this were true — and you haven't included any links to support your accusation, that such violators are prosecuted for anything other than the actual violation itself — it is not a widely-known fact.

      Unlike the bogosity of the prosecutions by the actual KGB/Stasi.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    47. Re:Applause by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it's still working this way, but at least for a very long time encryption algorithms and software were classified as "munitions" in order to keep American developed encryption methods from being exported to other countries.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    48. Re:Applause by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals.

      Yeah, they jumped all over upper management at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, didn't they?

    49. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way, may I say that I feel the man is likely a patriot (not to the government, but the people), and i sincerely hope that we see many, many more examples like this in the coming weeks/months/years. Also, why the hell does Slashdot still allow UID logins? Move to an ALL AC SYSTEM NOW!!!!

    50. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that OP is arguing we're there yet. The point remains the same, however. What we are witnessing here vs cold war soviet republic is much more a difference in degree than a difference in kind. That we've already crossed that bridge is scary enough, rarely in the history of government(s) have abuses become milder rather than worse (if less widespread).

    51. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid, and suspecting that we're getting ever closer to a Second Amendment solution. Perhaps it is the only way.

    52. Re:Applause by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      We do not live in a lawful society.

    53. Re:Applause by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      My only guess is they ordered him to install spyware. He could not tell us that or disobey the order but he could shut the system down.

      Give it time - I'm sure in a year or two they'll remove the freedom to do that as well.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    54. Re:Applause by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Well, OK then, can I have the metadata please?

      Only going forward. The metadata history, assuming a sufficiently paranoid lack of long-term logging, would be unavailable.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    55. Re:Applause by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1

      I think you have it basically right. As I understand Lavabit, they encrypted incoming email with a public key for which only the user had the private key. They could not provide plaintext of existing email to a government demand. So the government probably ordered them to keep plaintext copies of all future email, which would be technically possible. The only way to avoid it was to shut down the service altogether. There'd be no reason to shut down the service if the demand was only for existing data as that would not relieve them of the requirement to fork it over. At the moment their MX server is not accepting incoming SMTP connections, which lends weight to my theory. The government could still seize the domain name and set up their own inbound SMTP server, but hopefully the publicity has warned everyone away. Right now there are two MX records for lavabit.com: mx.lavabit.com and lavabit.com, both of which resolve to IPv4 address 72.249.41.52. imap.lavabit.com also resolves to the same IPv4 address. Let's see if those records change...

    56. Re:Applause by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Assumption: Faced with a US-hosted system that has been properly architected in the way you describe, the governments response to the system owner explaining that any sort of spying was explicitly impossible by design would be to say "Oh, OK. Sorry to have bothered you, Sir" and go on their merry way.

      As opposed to demanding the system be re-architected so future use could be spied upon.

    57. Re:Applause by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about this? Would it in fact be possible to gain access to all past stored emails by logging a future user session? Or was it only possible to gain access to future emails by recording a copy of the incoming plaintext before encrypting them with the user's public key? This is an honest question; I hadn't even heard of Lavabit until today (I would have been a customer if I had) so I only know what I've read. Even before today, the past several months have proved what we've all long suspected: a security model that requires the users to trust a commercial service provider is simply not workable. Even (especially) in the United States. Ideally, a security model shouldn't require you to trust anyone in the middle at all. If that's not possible (and for many services, it's not) it should rely on a large volunteer group, at least some of whom are honest. Something like TOR, though it has its own problems.

    58. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find interesting about this is the fact that almost everybody speculating about it is presuming that whatever the government's actually doing is unconstitutional, and they're violating his First Amendment rights to hide the fact. Now, I'll be the first to admit that this is probably exactly what's happening, but there's always the chance that it isn't.

      No, there isn't. The U.S. Constitution starts with the words "We the People of the United States". Any act that is removed from the knowledge and control of the people is not constitutional. Granted, they may break a wagonload of other constitutional provisions, but the way they break them is explicitly prohibited by the First Amendment unless he is lying about the gag order for publicity's sake. Which is rather unlikely since it would be rather easy to countermand.

    59. Re:Applause by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      you seem to be forgetting about that "without due process" bit.

    60. Re:Applause by fsterman · · Score: 1

      He can't refuse the order, but they can't stop him from terminating the
      service, and thereby making the order moot. A beautiful gesture.

      Oh no, they can stop him from doing anything that would communicate to his clients that they are being surveilled. It doesn't matter if you communicated by *not* doing something, the judge would shoot that shit down very quickly. He is likely to face significant backlash for shutting down his operation like this. Think of the old Italian mafia, do you really think they wouldn't have tried similar tactics had they been legal?

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    61. Re:Applause by fsterman · · Score: 1

      So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals.

      Neither Snowden nor Julian Assange are terrorists. Julian Assange may be more anti-american, but Wikileaks does not differ fundamentally from the NYT or the Guardian.

      We need to protect such whistle blowers, not persecute them.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    62. Re:Applause by Zelucifer · · Score: 1

      If that was indeed the scenario, why not just delete the account in question?

      --
      The corner of a round room
    63. Re:Applause by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      People keep writing post like yours, about what we don't know. I say it does not matter. The NSA has been caught now contradicting itself again and again. Liars lie. Trust is earned and at this point I don't think NSA or the rest of the state security apparatus has any. After all these abuses it should be encumber upon then to show they haven't violated anyone's rights in cases like this. Without evidence to the contrary we have every reason to assume they did, and few reasons to offer the. The Benifet of doubt.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    64. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So far their targets really are terrorists and other nasty criminals"

      Sure. If you consider a whilsteblower like Snowden to be a nasty criminal, after Obama said previously that whistleblower's would be protected.

      Also, how the hell would he know? It's all done in secret. Break the secrecy, end up in prison for life(or long enought that it doesn't matter). Guess how many innocent will risk being locked in.

    65. Re:Applause by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally I think despite not being American Julian Assange follows more closely what could be called the traditional "American Way" than those calling him names. He's just a publisher, and what he's published has exposed the misdeeds of some people that just happen to be American instead of any sort of active attack on the country even in words. Remember that pointing out that Hillary Clinton was up to no good is not the same as pointing out the entire country is at fault of something.

    66. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be sure of that? The beauty is that you are not allowed to know what they are doing. They are allowed to do anything they want in the name of the national security. BTW GB in the KGB stands for the national security, so are the two first letters in the NSA. Our three letter agency equivalent of USSR's KGB is actually quite a bit more powerful than KGB ever was. They are definitely better financed and not crippled by a need to support an ideology.

      For the last 10 years US reminds me USSR of the late Brezhnev's period so much. The same dumbheaded war in Afghanistan,corrupt and incapable leadership, secret prisons/psychiatric wards for "enemies" of the state, eavesdropping on private conversations, cratering economy, etc. It is all so similar down to applause to dear leader during speeches.

    67. Re:Applause by sjames · · Score: 1

      Due process is laying in a bloody heap on the sidewalk. The secret court threw it out the window.

    68. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst part of censorship is ***...

    69. Re:Applause by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Obviously the feds have seized his servers, and installed software and hardware to capture the passphrases, as people who don't know the service is not longer secure, log-in to get and send their email.

      Just like with the TOR network.

      And this, my dear friends, is just the beginning.

    70. Re:Applause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that many "non-profits" engaged in direct political activity the IRS should after them.

      Right-wing hate groups like the moral majority and focus on the family violate federal law everyday and should be shut down.

      By any definition they are criminal enterprises.

  5. Just do what Snowden did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Leak all the secret things the government is doing and all the information Lavabit's not allowed to tell us to Glenn Greenwald.

    Then move to Russia.

    1. Re: Just do what Snowden did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whistle blower not leaker! Grrrt.

  6. Context by a+whoabot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when Obama boycotts a meeting with the Russians due to concerns over "human rights", you may now know that this is a lie.

    1. Re:Context by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Obama is tired of Russia and China showing up the US about human rights :-p

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    2. Re:Context by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read the stuff coming out of Russia on gay rights. Russia is not showing the US up on human rights; they have simply taken an opportunity to embarrass us on our own human rights failures, not because they disapprove of skulduggery, but because they disapprove of us. This is like a crack dealer turning in the mayor for smoking crack (hey, I live in DC, it's the first metaphor that came to mind).

    3. Re:Context by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct. It was bizarre that Snowden ran to countries that are much worse on civil rights, but just want to make the U.S. look bad. The "America, Fuck No!" crowd is just as bad as the "America, Fuck Yeah!" crowd that told us we were traitors for opposing the Iraq war.

    4. Re:Context by Threni · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > just want to make the U.S. look bad.

      No, all the other countries - the ones who are publicly condemning the US but secretly working with them and/or sharing their information - are too scared of the US to let him in.

    5. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      To be fair, the Russian people have nearly unanimously voted time and again to restrict homosexuality in their country.

      For better or for worse, Russian sociologists, psychologists, criminologists and biologists have created quite the documentation chain that causes their intelligensia to favor the restraining, if not outright ban, of homosexuality in their country.

      The main populous argument goes like this:
      1. In almost every White country on Earth, Liberals have adopted a stance that encouraged the rapid immigration of unskilled, usually poor, and usually less literate peoples with predominantly non-Caucasian DNA and cultures into their lands, largely since the 1960s. This has led almost inexorably and universally wherever it has been adopted to 1) vastly increased amounts of violent and/or petty crime, particularly rape and murder, 2) a general dumbing down of society, and 3) a host of other social morays associated with overpopulation of largely non-genius peoples who refuse to assimilate with the dominant culture.

      2. Russia stands pretty much alone as the only predominantly-White country that still favors White peoples of European descent and culture, and favors those will skilled labor talents of all races.

      3. Therefore, since the very beginnings of Putin's first presidency in the early 2000s, Russia has been adopting one policy after another that focuses on making sure that not only will the Whites not be grossly polluted with Southern Asians, Hispanics, Africans, you name it, but also those policies that facilitate higher birthrates in White women and higher educational standards and after-birth care for all Russian children.

      In short, Western countries almost universally have been adopting the opposite, to the part where Whites will be a minority in America in just a few years (TX and CA already), crime will be rampant, and non-whites will be outbreeding us by 2-5:1.

    6. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emperor Obama has his own definition of freedom that can't be correlated with the public. He is an emperor, so he doesn't give a shit.

    7. Re:Context by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bizarre?

      Regardless of your opinion an Snowden or any related matters, his actions do not seem bizarre as long as you properly weight his motives. I don't think he was trying to force a comparison between the US and other countries.

      I would suggest his primary concern was to avoid extradition - you know... as in what most people are hoping for when they seek asylum for any odd reason. Given the far reach of the US in today's world, his choices were/are rather limited.

    8. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what passes for diplomacy these days.
      US: stop executing dissenters' families
      China: at least we don't have one of our states threatening to round up everyone who looks foreign!

      US diplomat a minute later: I suppose that's technically true because you don't have any states and you will shoot anyone you catch trying to sneak out of North Korea.

    9. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the truth makes your country look bad, how can this be the messenger's fault?

    10. Re:Context by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not so bizarre. He ran to countries big enough to tell the US to fuck off. Putin is absolutely overjoyed at being able to stick it to the US in a way that is basically meaningless but just makes them look bad.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    11. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President never lies! His concerns over "human rights" are true. How dare those russkiyes refusing to cooperate with the US to violate human rights of US citizens!

    12. Re:Context by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      All of what you said would make sense if the evidence was in direct contradiction. Crime rates are not spiking or even raising, but going down significantly over the last 25 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    13. Re:Context by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but also those policies that facilitate higher birthrates in White women and higher educational standards and after-birth care for all Russian children.

      That has nothing to do with restricting homosexuality. A gay man is not going to go out and impregnate a women just because you made homosexuality illegal. It's just going to drive the behavior underground. The points you listed have everything to do with xenophobia and nothing to do with homosexuality (or any sexuality, really).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:Context by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would think that opposition to gay rights actually decreases the birth rate, since gay people in countries where they are welcomed into society and who want children have lots of avenues to have them -- surrogacy, sperm donation, "hey, let's fuck even though I'm not into your gender just so one of gets pregnant" arrangements, etc. This is unlikely to happen in Russia now.

      Also, the people often cited as "undesirables" -- Africans, Muslims, whatever -- all tend to have homophobia and misogyny in common. One would think that if one wanted to keep Muslims away (not saying, of course, that this is a good thing!), it seems like allowing open homosexuality and public displays of sexuality would be a good way to make a country less appealing to puritans.

    15. Re:Context by RandomFactor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was bizarre that Snowden ran to countries that are much worse on civil rights, but just want to make the U.S. look bad.

      Snowden ran to countries that wouldn't put him in jail. I suspect their civil rights records were a much lower weighted factor.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    16. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " It's just going to drive the behavior underground. "

      Well they may count a closet homosexual with spouse and kids as a win.

    17. Re:Context by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      It's only the messengers' fault if you can't blame anyone but yourself.

    18. Re:Context by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So yeah, basically you just tried to justify homophobia with racism.

    19. Re:Context by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      Dude, take your meds and stop mixing phobias.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    20. Re:Context by kqs · · Score: 2

      Wow, Putin is a shoe-in for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination! I wonder if the Tea Party realizes that Russia stole their platform? Or maybe they stole Russia's?

    21. Re:Context by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      In short, Western countries almost universally have been adopting the opposite, to the part where Whites will be a minority in America in just a few years (TX and CA already), crime will be rampant, and non-whites will be outbreeding us by 2-5:1.

      I think you were looking for Stormfront. It's way down there on the right. No, further right. There you go. Hoods right inside the door.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    22. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's your point? The popular Russian concept is clearly wrong factually and ethically.

      Even if you could cut through their popular media with facts, it still won't matter. Diversity--of ethnicity, homosexuality, etc--will only be accepted once people become emotionally comfortable with it.

      Most Americans thought exactly like the Russians just a couple of generations ago. Heck, most Americans _still_ think like this, in terms of their mental processes. It's just that their "evidence" is slightly different so they come to different conclusions. None of it is truly based on fact.

      Heck, our whole idea "gay" or "straight" dichotomy is artificial. In some sense, it's just as wrong and pernicious as what the Russians believe.

      I predict that in 5 or 10 years, once homosexuals have truly made their bed in normative American society, you'll find conservative homosexuals denouncing and roadblocking transgendered and other people who don't fit into the new norm.

    23. Re:Context by Teun · · Score: 1
      Hehe, you talk like a Putin, afraid of his own sexuality, well at least not comfortable with it why else does he regularly come up with these macho photo sessions, fishing, hunting, driving a tank or a submarine.

      You seem to worry about the DNA of the population, implying the present DNA is somehow superior to the DNA from the outside world, a rather unsupported idea.
      In a society where homosexuality is oppressed many homosexuals will marry just to hide their sexual preferences and children are going to be born out of these couples, (many) more so then would they have been allowed to happily live as homosexuals, what does that do for your DNA worries?

      But the worst thing is people are being made unhappy for no reason what so ever, it is a fact that roughly 9% of the population is homosexual or at least bi-sexual, this is not a choice, it's the way you were born and are going to die.

      Homosexuality is not a disease that can be cured, nor is it a voluntary choice that depends on others, it is totally involuntary and the new Russian laws are only going to make a lot of unhappy people..

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    24. Re:Context by Arith · · Score: 1

      This is like a crack dealer turning in the mayor for smoking crack (hey, I live in DC, it's the first metaphor that came to mind).

      And here I thought you were going to make a crack (shh) about Toronto.. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/08/04/toronto_mayor_rob_ford_remains_shadowed_by_crack_video_scandal_editorial.html

    25. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they cam to this conclusion before or after realizing they have the one of the highest murder rates in europe. In my own town the russians outdo the mexicans in terms of pure crime figures.

    26. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, now the USA only needs to spread around the news that Snowden was into gay midget porn FTW!

    27. Re:Context by stanlyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is funny, but in Russia, if you are suing someone, or have some search warrant, you cannot forbid the "victim" to talk about it. Unlike USA, where it is the norm, for some strange reason, no matter the 1st amendment.

    28. Re:Context by stanlyb · · Score: 2, Funny

      In England, when they banned the practice of punishing the students' bottom, the homosexuality dropped from 30% to something 10-20%....
      Go figure.

    29. Re:Context by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Maybe homosexuality is only as 'involuntary' as your 'involuntary' muscles?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    30. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a silly argument, no one points to Russia, China as beacons of human rights, US and Western Europe on the other hand, yes and loudly self righteously so. Those countries don't make tall claims, on the contrary they are under constant international pressure to reform, now I wonder who is going to apply this pressure without being a complete hypocrite, which by recent revelations US and Europe have been.

      Lose the arrogance. It's your rights under attack. There is no comparison. Comparing yourself to Russia and feeling happy just reflects the dangerous slide that's begun.

    31. Re:Context by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I don't follow either of them closely; but it sounds like Putin and Nugent would get along great.

    32. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the stuff coming out of Russia on gay rights. Russia is not showing the US up on human rights; they have simply taken an opportunity to embarrass us on our own human rights failures, not because they disapprove of skulduggery, but because they disapprove of us. This is like a crack dealer turning in the mayor for smoking crack (hey, I live in DC, it's the first metaphor that came to mind).

      Actually, sounds a whole lot like what happened in Toronto, Ontario recently.

    33. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the stuff coming out of Russia on gay rights. Russia is not showing the US up on human rights; they have simply taken an opportunity to embarrass us on our own human rights failures, not because they disapprove of skulduggery, but because they disapprove of us. This is like a crack dealer turning in the mayor for smoking crack (hey, I live in DC, it's the first metaphor that came to mind).

      +1... and at first I thought you were from Toronto... (hey, first metaphor that came to mind... )

    34. Re:Context by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      The best data shows that homosexuality is, at most, 2-3% depending on how you count. The 9% figure was, IIRC, put out by the Kinsey report back in the dark ages, based on a study of a highly skewed population.

      OTOH, since it's fairly easy to show that essentially all males will screw anything that doesn't run too fast when their inhibitions are down, perhaps it's a moot point.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    35. Re:Context by countach · · Score: 1

      Hmm, since there aren't as far as I know, lots of people trying to get into Russia to live, whether from Asia, Africa or whatever, I'm not sure how your outlandish theory could be tested.

    36. Re:Context by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That's not surprising, since in my experience Hispanic immigrants are, for their socioeconomic status, pretty peaceful people.

    37. Re:Context by Entropius · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point: I'm disclaiming such comparisons. Russia has black marks on its record; they should fix them. So do we. Counting who has more is pointless.

    38. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is half of why we have these problems: because people like you think "gay rights" matter more than everything else combined.

    39. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sigh, where do you get your info from?! Russia didn't take the opportunity to embarrass the States, they were pretty much forced into taking Snowden. He showed up on their doorstep on the run from the Americans, in transit to some other country, but the yanks blocked every possibility of him moving on.

      The Russians waited as much as they could, hoping the Snowden problem would just go away, but the yanks just wouldn't back down, so in the end they were left with the choice of handing him over to the Americans or keeping him. Choice 1 would've made them look weak and abhored by the world outside US. Choice 2 doesn't turn them into instant heroes or anything but pisses off only the yanks.

      Russia didn't embarrass the US, the Americans did a fine job of embarrassing themselves by making every diplomatically wrong move along the way. And you guys are still embarrassing yourselves by looking at the world in black and white and taking every opportunity to take cheap shots at other countries.

    40. Re:Context by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      My enemy's enemy is my friend.
      Right now he's just trying to survive, so really, no, it's not bizarre.

    41. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correct. It was bizarre that Snowden ran to countries that are much worse on civil rights, but just want to make the U.S. look bad. The "America, Fuck No!" crowd is just as bad as the "America, Fuck Yeah!" crowd that told us we were traitors for opposing the Iraq war.

      No, Jeffy, when the American government had to publicly promise that it wouldn't torture Snowden, a US citizen, as an incentive for Russia to give him up, it didn't need any other help making itself look bad.

    42. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >2. Russia stands pretty much alone as the only predominantly-White country that still favors White peoples of European descent and culture, and favors those will skilled labor talents of all races.

      That was funny.

    43. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the stuff coming out of Russia on gay rights. Russia is not showing the US up on human rights; they have simply taken an opportunity to embarrass us on our own human rights failures, not because they disapprove of skulduggery, but because they disapprove of us. This is like a crack dealer turning in the mayor for smoking crack (hey, I live in DC, it's the first metaphor that came to mind).

      So this would be a problem for straight people how exactly? The entire gay rights movement was created by the "New World Order" to distract everyone as a false flag operation while the various governments stripped everyone's rights away right from under their noses. As long as you are not queer or flamboyantly so, you are more free in Russia than the US. Congrats on your "victory". It smells more like defeat.

    44. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and "policies that facilitate higher birthrates" are crap - they don't do shit. Having kids is very expensive, ya know.

    45. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. It was bizarre that Snowden ran to countries that are much worse on civil rights, but just want to make the U.S. look bad. The "America, Fuck No!" crowd is just as bad as the "America, Fuck Yeah!" crowd that told us we were traitors for opposing the Iraq war.

      He is not gay so he why should he care? Do you think everyone should put up with losing their rights so some people can have their "party" and pretend that society accepts them now? How you liking those "Freedoms" or the lack there of?

    46. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. This is LITERALLY what happened in Toronto over the last few months.

      Source: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/08/04/toronto_mayor_rob_ford_remains_shadowed_by_crack_video_scandal_editorial.html (most recent news on it is 2 days old it seems - he had the guy who had proof killed)

      Really. Seriously. Crack dealer turned the mayor in. Canada. Who knew?

    47. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is half of why we have these problems: because people like you think "gay rights" matter more than everything else combined.

      Shhhh. The powers that be might realize that their plan has been uncovered. They tried to distract everyone with the "gay rights" thing while they secretly destroyed everyone's basic human rights. So in the end, about 1% or less of the population got a pyrrhic victory but 100% of the population of regular people got the shaft.

    48. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not just "wouldn't put him in jail". Manning was tortured for years before he even saw a court. And if the U.S. decides to declare you an enemy, they'll just kill you and any bystanders whenever it's convenient. Happens all the time in Pakistan.

      Whatever the total civil rights records of the involved countries may be, it is clear that for him in particular to get a worse deal than in the U.S. would require screwing the King of Saudi Arabia.

    49. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of what you said would make sense if the evidence was in direct contradiction. Crime rates are not spiking or even raising, but going down significantly over the last 25 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

      So what? It's win, win. If the crime rates are going up, that calls for more government intervention with public life. If the crime rates are going down, this justifies the existing government interventions with public life and makes more of them desirable.

      Either way, the government will find themself justified tightening the thumb screws. You can interpret statistics either way, so whacking the government with statistics is never going to get them off your neck. The only thing you can reliably whack them with is the constitution. The constitution does trump any cry of "but, communists", "but, terrorists", "but, liberties". That's what it was written for in the first place, to put a stop any power-mongering "you can trust us to act in your interest" governing classes/systems.

    50. Re:Context by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Well exactly. China and Russia are guilty of very serious human rights issues (at least by comparison to most Western states including the US). But while the US is performing extrajudicial killings, internments, secret arrests and secret court orders etc. it provides an an excuse for Russia to invoke the "you too" logical fallacy, i.e. that because you're guilty in some measure of what you accuse me of, it somehow absolves me of doing exactly the same only worse.

      It may be a logical fallacy but most people wouldn't see it in those terms. If the US wants to take the moral highground it has to act virtuously. And of late (since 9/11 basically) it has not been acting that way.

    51. Re:Context by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      All of what you said would make sense if the evidence was in direct contradiction. Crime rates are not spiking or even raising, but going down significantly over the last 25 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

      Actually, even if this one piece of evidence was not in direct contradiction, the original post would still be crap, a sequence of unsupported allegation connected via non-sequiturs. See "Lack of pirates is causing global warming".

      --

      Stephan

    52. Re:Context by Teun · · Score: 1

      OTOH, since it's fairly easy to show that essentially all males will screw anything that doesn't run too fast when their inhibitions are down, perhaps it's a moot point.

      That's where you go wrong, a heterosexual man will never find another man sexually attractive, when he does that's fine with me but he is then part of the percentage I mentioned.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    53. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You state that crime has been going up as if it was a fact, but crime has been going down in most of the "white" countries. In the US, violent crime is about half what it was vs. even in the 70's.

    54. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the "norm" for the "victim" of a lawsuit or search warrant to be forbidden to talk about it. That's only happening with these new wierd FISA warrants.

      However, if you are sued or threatened with prosecution, the first thing your lawyer will do is tell you to shut up in case your words are twisted against you. But you have the right to ignore your lawyer's advice, or to carefully craft a statement. And it's probably OK to publish most (non-FISA) court orders or warrants - if you post them in full and don't actually say anything about them, there's nothing to twist.

      The FISA court is a real anomaly in the American justice system.

    55. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoe-in

      This one is spelled wrongly so often that it’s likely it will eventually end up that way. The correct form is shoo-in, usually with a hyphen. It has been known in that spelling and with the meaning of a certain winner from the 1930s. It came from horse racing, where a shoo-in was the winner of a rigged race.

      In turn that seems to have come from the verb shoo, meaning to drive a person or an animal in a given direction by making noises or gestures, which in turn comes from the noise people often make when they do it.

      The shift to the horse racing sense seems to have occurred sometime in the early 1900s. C E Smith made it clear how it came about in his Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburgh Phil in 1908: “There were many times presumably that ‘Tod’ would win through such manipulations, being ‘shooed in’, as it were”.

    56. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the Russian Propaganda machine cares what the actual numbers are when they go against their ideal? Not even close. The other AC isn't saying that "This is why the rest of the world is getting dumber." He's saying "This is what Russia is feeding their people to convince the sheep that the rest of the world are dumb as hell and the only way to keep the stupidity from entering their borders is by keeping the bloodline purely Caucasian and ensuring that every man is putting their dicks in the reproductive holes of women instead of the shit-holes of other men." Propaganda at its finest. Real facts need not apply.

    57. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AC did not. Russia is and the AC was stating this fact. Reading comprehension dude. "The views expressed are not necessarily the personal views of the submitter" and all that jazz. I can see where you might be making that inference that he agrees with it, but it is a bit of a conclusion jump since he didn't come out and say "This is what Russian propaganda says and I believe it wholeheartedly!"

    58. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bizarre? When so many European countries were willing to cause a major diplomatic incident and prevent a South American ambassador's plane from flying over just because they thought Snowden might be on it?

      They don't even do such things to catch murderers.

      The long arm of the USA is long indeed. Assange, Snowden. Even holding the leash of NZ special intelligence services in the case of Megaupload.

    59. Re:Context by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Right. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Russia has no extradition treaty with the US--which Russian officials have repeatedly pointed out, and which they say they've been wanting for years.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    60. Re:Context by thoth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in Russia, if the government requests info and you shut the whole service down, you probably wind up in jail without much of a trial.

    61. Re:Context by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Don't have a link handy, but I seem to recall reading a story from the BBC just last week about this very issue in Russia.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    62. Re:Context by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Bizarre? When so many European countries were willing to cause a major diplomatic incident and prevent a South American presidents plane from flying over just because they thought Snowden might be on it?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    63. Re:Context by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Never been to prison, eh?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    64. Re:Context by Teun · · Score: 1

      No, why would I?
      And what difference does it make, around my way prisons are governed to prevent the homosexual raping that seems to be endemic in the US system.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    65. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT the russians violating human rights, but yes NAZIBama, will not meet with the russians due to concerns over human rights, russia, championing rights and NAZIBAma violating them .... do the world a favour and kill an american cop or politican

    66. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a lie. He was outraged that the Russians were treating Snowden as a human and giving him rights.

    67. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so bizarre. He ran to countries big enough to tell the US to fuck off. Putin is absolutely overjoyed at being able to stick it to the US in a way that is basically meaningless but just makes them look bad.

      Exactly. Name the two countries who can actually put a halt to American influence inside their borders.

      Did you say Russia and China?

      You win!

  7. IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If only ALL THIS had come out before the 2012 elections things would be different now !!

    Or would they ??

    1. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would probably be worst. Remember who actually enacted these laws.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The people who lost the 2012 elections?

    3. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think Romney or Hillary Clinton or any of the Bushes would have done anything different? Only candidates that would would try to put an end to the corruption and abuse of power in the American system these days would be Ron or Rand Paul. They will never get elected because all the powers that be fear and hate them. If, by some fluke, they did get elected by the actual American voters, inspite of the negative media bombardment aimed at them, they would be assassinated in months.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would probably be worst. Remember who actually enacted these laws.

      And remember who ran under the platform with one of the key points being that he would repeal them.

    5. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wont forget that soon.

    6. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not think that, but I do think that the House and Senate are even more to blame. They wrote the laws and passed them, complete with a raft of deal-sweeteners attached, knowing that no sane POTUS would veto something that "protects us from teh terrorists".

    7. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there are also people on the left who would do the right thing (Kucinich?). The problem is that caring about freedom is the mark of a kook in the view of the mainstream media, no matter where you otherwise fall on the political spectrum.

    8. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by jerpyro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think we all lost the 2012 elections.

    9. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Gary Johnson

    10. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rand and Ron Paul would not be assassinated. What would happen to them would be far worse.... for us! They would quietly settle into the same patterns that Bush and Obama did. They are politicians, nothing more. They would make grand statements, something large (but not too large) and mostly symbolic would happen ("We're finally closing Gitmo! ....... and shipping all prisoners to a Saudi Torture chamber."), and then when the initial fervor died down, and after a few key meetings, they would realize the "necessity" of surveillance on everyone in America and abroad.

      Put simply: we're kind of fucked.

    11. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

      Now, they do have some valid points which I do advocate for, but so many things they want to do would be so terrible, IMHO ( like their laissez faire economics, and lack of support for social programs) I have to vote to keep them out. They would do more harm than good.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    12. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Romney or Hillary Clinton or any of the Bushes would have done anything different?

      Yes.

      None of the above ever claimed the right to kill anyone anywhere in the world for any reason they decide.

      The Bushes never invaded a country without Congressional approval.

    13. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      If only ALL THIS had come out before the 2012 elections things would be different now !!

      They probably would have been a lot like the 2008 elections. A lot of promises about how things need to change and rights need to be preserved followed up with exactly dick to show for any of those promises. This is what happens when you vote a Democrat or a Republican into office. I'd like to comment on what happens when you vote another party into office, but I've never seen that happen.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We didn't 'lose' it. We gave it up freely of our own volition.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have got to be shitting me. Ron and Rand Paul are may not be beholden to the status quo, but they are not the libertarians they claim to be. They are theocrats and racists who want to tear down equality and justice in America.

      Gary Johnson is a better Libertarian that either Pauls, and he is a god damn supporter of the modern slavery movement (for profit prison industrial work farms).

    16. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And remember the idiots responsible for reelecting him/them. If the voters don't correct this, nobody will. What incentive would there be?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Be careful the slashdot libertarian brigade will get their panties in a twist if you speak ill of their saints like that.

    18. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They will never get elected because all the powers that be fear and hate them.

      They will never get elected because, with the possible exception of this issue, most of their positions are considered lunatic fringe. It has nothing to do with fear or hate and everything to do with them simply being unacceptable candidates.

      Show me someone whose social and corporate positions are reasonably to Obama's, but with a more reasoned position on domestic spying, the TSA, etc. and I'll show you a candidate I'd vote for. Instead, you're showing me someone whose social positions seem to be reasonably close to Walt Disney's, and whose corporate positions are reasonably close to John D. Rockefeller's.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you insane? That nonsense of theirs would never pass to begin with. Are you seriously not going to vote for them because of unimportant issues such as those? Freedom is far more important even though I do support social programs and such. At the very least, they could veto crappy laws.

    20. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'd like to comment on what happens when you vote another party into office, but I've never seen that happen.

      Good god, a little fact checking after my comment shows that the last president who was not a Democrat or a Republican was Zachary Taylor / Millard Fillmore, elected in 1848 (Taylor died in office, leaving Fillmore as president). That's 12 years before Lincoln was elected to his first term. It's the same year that John Quincy Adams died.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those other guys only want to do a host of other things to violate people's rights, that's all.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    22. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only candidates that would would try to put an end to the corruption and abuse of power in the American system these days would be Ron or Rand Paul.

      Or Gary Johnson, or John Huntsman, or Jill Stein, or several other people who didn't manage to make it onto prime-time national debates.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    23. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by pspahn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and he is a god damn supporter of the modern slavery movement (for profit prison industrial work farms).

      He also vetoed more bills as a governor of New Mexico than any other governor, from any other state, in history (if my memory serves me correctly).

      Yes, he's a politician like any other, but this single fact alone puts him a bit above the rest. The bureaucratic weight that is crushing this country is generated by endless legislation. We are managing a 21st century nation with 200 year old methods. It's time to modernize and clean house.

      Much like cleaning out a garage, we'll have to make a large organized mess in the yard if we intend to get it clean.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    24. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Erikderzweite · · Score: 2

      He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Which is what you did: gave up freedoms for perceived economical safety.

    25. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me that not a single one of all the United States has a position like this? Or just no one who belongs to the two big parties? That tells me a thing or two about your democracy.

    26. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by ndykman · · Score: 2

      If Feingold ran, I'd vote for him in a second. The only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He saw this coming and was a lone voice against it.

    27. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you kidding? He was reelected in 2012, after four years of acting like a GW Bush clone.

      We forgot really fucking quickly.

    28. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ballot Access rules will keep you all from ever seeing a fix by means of your current election system.

      Condolences for the great experiment.

    29. Re: IF ONLY ... !! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we all lost the last four Presidential elections.

    30. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He who lives his life by taking famous quotations and applying them to different situations without context, makes trivial points.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    31. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, they do have some valid points which I do advocate for, but so many things they want to do would be so terrible, IMHO ( like their laissez faire economics, and lack of support for social programs) I have to vote to keep them out. They would do more harm than good.

      You just don't get it. The government does not control corporations, it makes it possible for them to fuck you. The social programs it supplies fucks the people you want to help.

      Any successful politician above a voter base of 100 people is successful because he or she is a narcistic sociopath. They use your type of arguement to divert you from the fact that they are fucking you all day long every day!

    32. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Chrontius · · Score: 2

      You might be interested to know that the green party is very much the libertarian-left you're looking for.

    33. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2

      "The other candidate would have handled this differently" may be true.

      But the differences may well have been superficial. Or the situation might well be worse than it already is.

      Swapping candidate B for candidate A isn't a magic wand even in a thought exercise.

    34. Re: IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you all lost the US.

    35. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      You remind of the old jokes about the wh*****s. There are only two kind, stupid and smart. The stupid ones end-up f**** and broke.

    36. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still remember the days of the Slashdot Obama Brigade. Time was when you couldn't speak any ill of Saint Obama, or you'd be buried in downvotes, so don't act all high and mighty :P

    37. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would you claim ron paul is a racist? don't tell me about the stupid newsletter propaganda either. why don't you read the letters he's written to his constituents every week for 30 years (or whatever) instead of the BS story about a third party newletter his campaign was supposed to be policing better? OR his unquestionable "NO" vote on just about everything under the sun? i'm assuming the theocrat claim has to do with abortion, because you probably don't mean "refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application." cause that would be too scary for us to handle. and you're the expert on abortion too, not the freakin' obstetrician? gary johnson? really?. i don't know much about rand. as far as i know, he's more of a republican than a libertarian and i don't think he claims otherwise, but keep spreading the lies of the state as it enslaves you and yours.

    38. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      As a WI resident, Feingold was freaking awesome. His was the one loss I was really sad about in 2010.

    39. Re: IF ONLY ... !! by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I'm perfectly happy with free elections, as long as I get to select the nominees!" - Boss Tweed, 1890s.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    40. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by garyebickford · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a hypothesis that it is impossible for anyone who would actually be a good President to get through the nomination process. This hypothesis has proved valid for a couple of decades now.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    41. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, not voting for that guy again.

    42. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Kohath · · Score: 2

      We don't debate their positions. We just say "lunatic fringe". We just say "Walt Disney". Facts? No need for those.

    43. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by rmdashrf · · Score: 2

      Republicans vs Democrats

      Who ever wins, we lose.

      --
      Nihil in publicum sputa.
    44. Re: IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you all lost the US.

      Really?? Gee, what the fuck clued you in, Sparky?

    45. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by demachina · · Score: 1

      Actually one of the Bush's started that, Obama is just continuing and expanding it. All of the other people I listed would have kept it too. Its probably the only tool that can attack Al Qaeda affiliates around the globe without the quagmires involved in invading countries to root them out.

      I don't think drone wars are the worst thing happening right now, they are the least bad alternative to fighting Al Qaeda affiliates. The two down sides are A) killing innocent bystanders which radicalizes all their friends and family B) it can be over used to kill people who probably shouldn't be killed. Since its such an easy way to fight a war chances are everyone will be doing it soon and it things are going to get really messy. Read Suarez, Kill Decision

      --
      @de_machina
    46. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid, worthless asshole. You can't have perfection, so you pick Fuck Everyone instead.

    47. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Now, they do have some valid points which I do advocate for, but so many things they want to do would be so terrible, IMHO ( like their crony capitalism economics, and lack of support for social programs) I have to vote to keep them out. They would do more harm than good.

      There. FTFY.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    48. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Remember when the news media covered stories like this? Before 2009, everyone would have learned of Lavabit. Your parents would know the name of Lavabit's owner. And now?

      The owner's name is Ladar Levison.

    49. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The purpose of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful. That is its only legitimate purpose, and anything that supports those purposes is almost guaranteed to be a good and just law; anything that does the opposite is guaranteed to be a horrible law.

      At its core, libertarian policies on corporations is to allow the free market to regulate itself. The problem is that when you do this, there is no one protecting the powerless. Corporations are regulated because of a history of abuse. The entire notion that they will magically start to behave themselves if deregulated is therefore prima facie preposterous. But moreover, even if the least abusive corporations "won" in the marketplace (which they would not, because the free market almost always favors those who can find better ways to cut corners without getting caught until it is too late to get your money back), a sizable number of people would still get hurt (possibly even killed) in the process. That's simply an unacceptable world, and I suspect that at least 99% of the public would agree with that assertion.

      By definition, such numbers clearly place their economic views within the realm of the lunatic fringe. This is not to say that the libertarians aren't sometimes right about needing certain regulations to go away when those regulations reduce competition for no good reason. Unfortunately, that's not what most of their politicians seem to choose as their ideology. Instead, they tend to choose an extremist view that is simply unjustifiable.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    50. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

    51. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I was never on that, so nothing to chastise me over.

    52. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      Rand and Ron Paul would not be assassinated. What would happen to them would be far worse.... for us! They would quietly settle into the same patterns that Bush and Obama did. They are politicians, nothing more. They would make grand statements, something large (but not too large) and mostly symbolic would happen ("We're finally closing Gitmo! ....... and shipping all prisoners to a Saudi Torture chamber."), and then when the initial fervor died down, and after a few key meetings, they would realize the "necessity" of surveillance on everyone in America and abroad.

      I wonder if, at this point, it's expected that Republicans and Democrats will behave the same. If a 3rd party were actually elected, and turned out to be just another puppet, that could royally piss off the population..

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    53. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the teeth are all in! and we are not the teeth...

    54. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ... says the douchebag who slurs ordinary people as lunatics.

      Unlimited corporations might be dangerous someday, so you're picking unlimited government instead, even though unlimited government is dangerous right now. So we can't even have one small government leader for even one term in office, to take even one step back toward following the Constitution.

    55. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      laissez faire: "let it be", The government in this style of economy lets things happen, like corporations screwing you. We agree on that.

      The social programs I'm in favor of that they would cut help more than they hurt. It can't be argued on the aggregate without getting into details weather they "help" or "hurt". Unless you are an expert in public policy, I doubt you are really informed enough to make that determination ( listening to talk radio does not count as being informed).

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    56. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      What is crony capitalism other than a buzzword that those that prefer less governmental regulation in the economy throw out to explain things the free market does without regulations that they don't like to prevent them from having to re-evaluate their economic policies?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    57. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      What is crony capitalism other than a buzzword that those that prefer less governmental regulation in the economy throw out to explain things the free market does without regulations that they don't like to prevent them from having to re-evaluate their economic policies?

      Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    58. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      They will never get elected because all the powers that be fear and hate them.

      They will never get elected because, with the possible exception of this issue, most of their positions are considered lunatic fringe. It has nothing to do with fear or hate and everything to do with them simply being unacceptable candidates.

      Show me someone whose social and corporate positions are reasonably to Obama's, but with a more reasoned position on domestic spying, the TSA, etc. and I'll show you a candidate I'd vote for. Instead, you're showing me someone whose social positions seem to be reasonably close to Walt Disney's, and whose corporate positions are reasonably close to John D. Rockefeller's.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    59. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      He pals around with the leader of the American National Socialist (NAZI) party, high ranking members of the KKK and the founder of STORMFRONT. There was testimony that Ron Paul was involved in or aware of (and did not report) the plot to overthrow the Dominican Republic and establish a white supremacist nation funded by the cocaine trade. He also suggested that the solution to ending slavery was for the north to buy all the southern slaves from their masters, reenforcing the idea that they were property and not human beings with rights of their own. There is absolutely no way he is anything other than damn dirty racist fuck.

    60. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Ron and Rand Paul are the fuck everyone choice. Theocracy and racism can not be tolerated.

    61. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      He also voted for DOMA.

      He also wrote the "We The People Act" that completely eliminates federal protection of religion from the first amendment. This is the first step in establishing a theocracy, preventing minority religions from fighting for their rights.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

    62. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Looks like you intended to say, "You remind me of the old joke about whores. There are only two kinds, stupid and smart. The stupid ones end up fucked and broke." Except you mistook the asterisk key for a bunch of others.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    63. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The purpose of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful.

      Thank you!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    64. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Remember who actually enacted these laws.

      Democrats and Republicans? It was practically unanimous and the most of those crackerjack politicians never even read the bill.

    65. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Limited corporations are also dangerous today. The limits just reduce that danger somewhat and/or shift the danger to overseas factories run under contract. Unlimited corporations would almost by definition be more dangerous. If you want to see what unlimited corporations looks like, you need only look back a hundred years or so to a time when children worked in the mills, factory workers frequently died because of unsafe working conditions, etc. Better yet, look at China today. Is that really the future you want for the United States?

      And no, I'm not picking unlimited government. Government should be limited by the Constitution and by the people's right to replace that government, whether through elections or, in sufficiently extreme circumstances, by force. The choice between unlimited government and unlimited business is a false dichotomy.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    66. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It has proved valid for millenia. And there is the equally valid corollary that anybody who wants the job is unqualified by default.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    67. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We didn't 'lose' it. We gave it up freely of our own volition.

      I sure as hell didn't. I've voted in every presidential election for the last 25 years, and never voted for a Republican or a Democrat, even though I knew my vote was essentially worthless. At the rate things are going, I will probably continue doing so for the rest of my life.

    68. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      But you oppose the only credible political movement to limit government.

    69. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      He also vetoed more bills as a governor of New Mexico than any other governor, from any other state, in history (if my memory serves me correctly).

      Nice. But could we have a list of the bills he vetoed? Quality counts, not just quantity.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    70. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by shentino · · Score: 1

      We didn't lose the election, it was stolen from us.

    71. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by shentino · · Score: 1

      Or maybe because he was the lesser of two evils.

    72. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by shentino · · Score: 1

      And who paints them as lunatics in the first place?

      That's right, the media.

      And who owns the media?

      That's right, the corporate elite.

      It will take nothing short of an act of faith to get the public to ignore the militantly organized smear campaign that will be brought to bear on any candidate who doesn't kiss ass with the powers that be.

  8. Freedom by intermodal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Totally Not A Cop Guys

    2. Re:Freedom by istartedi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

      I never saw freedom sold on the street.
      We always had to grow our own.
      Then we'd take it from our garden on a bus.
      They'd tell us we had to sit in back.
      When we got there they said we couldn't dance.
      Yet somehow that light still shown.
      We grew our own.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the NSA has helped the DEA really crack down on them.

      Basically impossible to find one now.

    4. Re:Freedom by Entropius · · Score: 1

      It's $1.05 plus shipping from Amazon.

    5. Re:Freedom by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

      See if you can find a Crypto Party near you. Or contact your local hackerspace and ask if you can help them host one.

    6. Re:Freedom by alexhs · · Score: 1

      Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

      Maybe are you too close to the borders ?

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:Freedom by DougOtto · · Score: 1

      Or, if you're okay with 5-45 day delivery you can get free Super Saver Shipping.

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    8. Re:Freedom by ericcc65 · · Score: 1

      It's $1.05 plus shipping from Amazon.

      Actually it's an add-on item. You have to buy 23 times as much security before you can add on a little bit of freedom as an afterthought.

    9. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom fruit only grows on the tree of liberty.

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

      Perhaps the Red Cross can help you make a withdrawl from your account?

    10. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, Mr. Sun can help you out the next time he ejects a strong enough solar flare to EMP the fuck out of every electronic gizmo from Cancun to the north pole...

      Only then will you be free.

    11. Re:Freedom by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that only works when you make withdrawals from the accounts of others. I really hope it doesn't come to that in my lifetime.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    12. Re:Freedom by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that only works when you make withdrawals from the accounts of others. I really hope it doesn't come to that in my lifetime.

      It already has, figuratively. Snowden is a refugee from his own country. Manning is counted by many as another who has spilled metaphorical blood doing his perceived patriotic duty. If we don't take down a few figurative tyrants (FISA &Co.), there will likely be more blood spilled, possibly including literal blood until either the Tree of Liberty can grow freely again or we give up and admit that we're no longer either Free or Brave.

    13. Re:Freedom by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      I don't typically care for the types of little poems or phrases like this (it reminds me of those phrases you'd see on some random girl's Facebook page like "live, laugh, love"), but that bit you've posted hit me right there. *bangs chest with fist*

    14. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, if you're okay with 5-45 day delivery you can get free Super Saver Shipping.

      Only if one purchases at least $25 in merchandise. That might be too much freedom!

    15. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This looks like a civil rights era poem, but google can't find it. Did you just make it up? If so, bravo.

    16. Re:Freedom by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Yes, made it up. Thank-you.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    17. Re:Freedom by istartedi · · Score: 1

      ZOMG! Ponies! LOL, thank-you.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    18. Re:Freedom by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Your freedom is carefully stored inside your wallet. When you work, you're not giving up freedom, as many youngsters believe. You're just saving it.

      The problem are the people who spend the freedom of others. The freedom they didn't work for.

      Some day the US will see it's changed from "land of the free" to "land of the freedom". And, hopefully, that day the country will be ready to discuss how is that still abundant freedom distributed.

    19. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation? Just curious.

    20. Re:Freedom by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Well, I meant in the literal sense. In the figurative sense, the fight is in progress and I can only hope the forces of liberty win.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  9. Edward, is that you? by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Funny

    I once lived there. I've been a tourist there a couple of times. I don't think I'll ever set mu foot there again. Good luck.

    There's a great Piroshky stand in the East terminal of the airport, you should try it.

    1. Re:Edward, is that you? by Zemran · · Score: 1

      No thanks, that involves being there.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  10. Long Live the King by mrex · · Score: 1

    Why not just bring up Bavalit?

    1. Re:Long Live the King by Pharoah_69 · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer to give a ring to Linda Bravabit

  11. First Amendment by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my mind, disallowing people from criticizing government actions and government policy is a serious violation of the First Amendment. It is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. I hope someone will challenge this issue in court.

    1. Re:First Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. Anyone involved in issuing or enforcing this gag order is committing a consipracy against rights, and is a criminal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your amendments don't mean shit anymore.

    3. Re:First Amendment by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

      We may have an independent judiciary, but do not have independent prosecution system. Do you think a President is going to allow his Attorney General to use these laws against his own agencies?

    4. Re:First Amendment by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, the Attorney General isn't too keen to use these laws against anything related to government regardless of circumstances.

    5. Re:First Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're an optimist. An independent judiciary would never have allowed secret courts in the first place. An independent judiciary would have denied at least one request for national security letters.

      No, it's worse than that. All three branches of our government, which are supposed to serve as checks on each other, have conspired against the Constitution. They are ALL criminals.

      Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:First Amendment by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The 1st Amendment was explicitly written to protect all speech without exception. And most of the violations have already been upheld in courts of law. This matter will get no further.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:First Amendment by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In my mind, disallowing people from criticizing government actions and government policy is a serious violation of the First Amendment.

      It doesn't seem that there has been a prohibition on criticizing policies here. The criticism is pretty clear in the statement quoted in the summary. The criticism is clear in the comments here. What's being limited is commenting on an ongoing investigation, which might cause the person being investigated to flee or destroy evidence.

      You can argue whether the latter is acceptable or not, but let's identify the correct issue.

    8. Re:First Amendment by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well that's an interpretation of the 1st Amendment, and a reasonable one given that it doesn't offer exceptions in the text. However, don't have a problem with the exceptions related to slander/libel, or yelling 'fire' in a theater. Of course, I don't even have a problem with the idea that there are national security secrets, and that you could be charged with treason for disclosing certain kinds of information.

      However, any decent historian can tell you that the intention of the 1st Amendment was to prevent the government from punishing dissidents for criticizing the government. They've now created a law that says that, if the government asks you to disclose private information in a program that spies on US citizens, you're not allowed to even talk about the issue.

      So for example, I could see the government saying, "Here is a warrant for some of the emails that you hold. You are not allowed to disclose what's in those emails, or even the details of who the specific target of the search is, since the target is currently being investigated and we don't want to tip them off." All that might be fair enough. But then they take the extra step, it seems, of saying, "You can't even talk about the fact that we asked you for information, You can't talk about how this process works." That, to me, is the root of the 1st Amendment violation. It means that you can't even complain about the situation without risking prison.

    9. Re:First Amendment by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well no, there is a prohibition of criticism. If you read his post, he only implies what's going on, and you have to read between the lines. What he's implying is that he can't speak his mind or talk about the issues publicly without facing legal repercussions.

      I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot.

      Now we can all guess, in terms of recent events, what's going on. The NSA has come to him and asked for access to the emails on his server. The only reason we know about this is because of Snowden, who has had to flee the country for revealing the information. If we did not have the "illegal" leak from Snowden, we would not know what this mail provider was talking about, and he would not be allowed to reveal it to us.

    10. Re:First Amendment by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      In my mind, disallowing people from criticizing government actions and government policy is a serious violation of the First Amendment. It is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. I hope someone will challenge this issue in court.

      The best way to win in court is to violate the secret unconstitutional orders and get arrested. That's also the highest risk thing to do. But getting arrested and charged seems quite a bit higher profile than having to close your business. OTOH having to close your business is pretty bad and makes the case worth hearing. Problem is they'll first try to make him take the case to a secret court and if it's just a business thing rather than being in jail the public is less likely to notice.

      Not saying I blame him for taking the less risky road at all, just that it's less likely to make a difference.

    11. Re:First Amendment by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      It has been said many times. If you want exceptions to the 1st Amendment, you must further amend the constitution. Otherwise, NO exceptions...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:First Amendment by Mansing · · Score: 2

      He can't speak on this matter most likely due to having been issued an National Security Letter

    13. Re:First Amendment by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The best way to win in court is to violate the secret unconstitutional orders and get arrested.

      I don't think that's the only option. I think that he can take the government to court for whatever warrant, court order, or threat they've given him. You can sue the government. I think. IANAL.

    14. Re:First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoiler alert: the first amendment has already been fucked:

      """
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      """

      Let me spell it out. The poster said "Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.". Now read the first amendment.

      Rinse, lather, repeat.

    15. Re:First Amendment by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Works for me...I've got a W88 on layaway at alibaba.com (Joking spooks).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:First Amendment by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Well no, there is a prohibition of criticism. ... "I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot."

      That is not the same as being prohibited from criticizing the government for having such a process, which clearly he does. Whether it is there in so many words or not, the message is clear. What he's prohibited from talking about are the specifics of what happened.

      There is a very great difference between "I oppose FISA and everything to do with it and our government should cease" and "I was issued a FISA warrant for email from XYZ and don't want to comply, and I oppose..." The former is criticism of the government, the latter is releasing specific details of an ongoing investigation AND criticism of the government. Notice that the difference is only the details part, and that the criticism is not prohibited in either case.

      Now we can all guess, in terms of recent events, what's going on. The NSA has come to him and asked for access to the emails on his server. The only reason we know about this is because of Snowden,

      So Snowden has released information about this request that happened after Snowden left a position where he had access to such information? You don't know, you admit it is a guess. Yeah, I'm guessing the same thing. But I won't claim that it is a fact or that Snowden is why we know it is a fact.

      We could all guess from events from ... how long ago was FISA created? ... that long ago what is going on.

      If we did not have the "illegal" leak from Snowden, we would not know what this mail provider was talking about,

      I'm sorry, but FISA requests have been part of the Patriot Act for many years. Any email provider who says "I am closing and I can't tell you specifics why" could be assumed to have been the subject of a FISA warrant that he doesn't want to submit to. That's long before Snowden released anything.

      If we're going to object to something, can we at least not use hyperbole and fear to try to turn it into something else? Is it not bad enough that the FISA system exists, that you have to try to convert it to some massive prohibition against criticism of the government?

    17. Re:First Amendment by nine-times · · Score: 2

      That is not the same as being prohibited from criticizing the government for having such a process, which clearly he does. Whether it is there in so many words or not, the message is clear. What he's prohibited from talking about are the specifics of what happened.

      If all you can legally say is, "Bad things are happening and I don't like it, but I'm not allowed to talk about it," that doesn't count as 'freedom of speech'. It doesn't matter if we can have some kind of general guess as to what's going on or what he doesn't like. He should be permitted to describe *what* he doesn't like so that he can convince others to agree with him.

      There is a very great difference between "I oppose FISA and everything to do with it and our government should cease" and "I was issued a FISA warrant for email from XYZ and don't want to comply, and I oppose..." The former is criticism of the government, the latter is releasing specific details of an ongoing investigation AND criticism of the government. Notice that the difference is only the details part, and that the criticism is not prohibited in either case.

      Yes, but you're creating a false dichotomy here. He can say, "I oppose FISA" but can't say, "I oppose FISA because they asked me for email records on John Smith pertaining to his travel to Saudi Arabia." But no one would is arguing that he should be able to say the latter. However, he should be able to say, publicly, "I oppose FISA because they came to me and required that I installed a backdoor so that they could query email accounts and collect all data on a specific person. Of course, I won't tell you who they're collecting data on or what the parameters of the search are, but that doesn't matter. The point is, I refuse to install a backdoor that allows the NSA to access any arbitrary email and bypass my encryption scheme."

      He should be allowed to level specific criticisms of the government's attack on his business, so long as he doesn't give specific details of who or what they're searching for.

      So Snowden has released information about this request that happened after Snowden left a position where he had access to such information? You don't know, you admit it is a guess. Yeah, I'm guessing the same thing.

      YES! That's my point. We can only speculate about what's going on, because the government has made it illegal to talk about their secret spy program that collects data on US citizens. The fact that we can only guess is a big part of the problem. The fact that we wouldn't even be able to guess if Snowden hadn't leaked information is another big part of the problem. Although this kind of spying has been going on for years, it is illegal for people who are aware of it to criticize the government about it. The only person who has come out and criticized the government had to take asylum in Russia.

      You can't say that it's legal to criticize the government openly when the only person to release specific criticisms, based on knowledge and not guesses, had to flee the country and find asylum in Russia.

      I'm sorry, but FISA requests have been part of the Patriot Act for many years.

      Speaking for myself, I wasn't aware that the US government held a secret court that issued secret search warrants. I didn't know that the NSA had backdoors into telecommunication provider to monitor everyone's email without a warrant. We still don't really know the limits or details of these programs. We have a pretty good guess that this company was issued a request for *something*, but we don't know what. We don't know how disturbing the request was, or how large an abuse of power it represents, and we can't know because he's not permitted to talk about it.

      And I believe that, even if this case is somehow innocuous, it still represents a slippery slope. Why doesn't this enable police departments, or the FBI, or any other government agency to issue a court order barring you from discussing how they conduct business? Could Congress pass a law saying that you're not allowed to talk about how the police conduct investigations, because it inhibits their ability to prevent and prosecute crime?

    18. Re:First Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously misreading the first amendment because you are not a lawyer. "Only lawyers can correctly understand the Constitution" -Obama

      It means whatever Obama says it means. Not sure why you are bringing it up at all.

    19. Re:First Amendment by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      A Federal court ruling on what the Federal government can and cannot do - where have you been for the past 12 years? Of course they'll find that it's "vital to national security" that they be allowed to violate his rights.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    20. Re:First Amendment by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's the only option. I think that he can take the government to court for whatever warrant, court order, or threat they've given him. You can sue the government. I think. IANAL.

      You can sue anyone, but the judge can also throw out the lawsuit. For example due to sovereign immunity.

    21. Re:First Amendment by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Funny, and if I said this about the 4th amendment where people try to apply it to something that it doesn't appear to be written or even intended for, they would mark me troll.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    22. Re:First Amendment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The 4th Amendment gives some wiggle room with the word 'unreasonable' which can be as loosely interpreted as anyone wants it to be. The 1st is absolute.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:First Amendment by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      However, any decent historian can tell you that the intention of the 1st Amendment was to prevent the government from punishing dissidents for criticizing the government.

      Now explain the sedition act?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  12. Eh, life in the big city by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am surprised the government let him shut down. That action alone probably violated the gag order.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Eh, life in the big city by shentino · · Score: 1

      Let my ass.

      Lavabit's already facing potential criminal charges after shutting down.

  13. Remember anon.penet.fi? by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Informative

    That system go shut down by the Church of Scientology. The powers that be fear a populous they can not spy on.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:Remember anon.penet.fi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow...I *DO* remember that. I haven't seen "anon.penet.fi" written down in ... a very long time. That brings back memories.

    2. Re:Remember anon.penet.fi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did the church of scientology want to spy on Fins?

    3. Re:Remember anon.penet.fi? by lxs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They wanted to know who was leaking their secrets so they could harrass and persecute them and anon.penet.fi was an anonymous email relay used by the leakers. Now why do I get this persistent sense of deja-vu when reading the news these days?

    4. Re:Remember anon.penet.fi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody probably insulted them via that anonymous remailer (wow.. I can almost remember a time when operating such a service wasn't an automatic 'terrorist / wrong-cock / subversive / copyright infringer' flag?), and since the couldn't sue the original guy..

  14. Legally by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Legally by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      The government obey the law, at least the one that it been rewriting for years to let them do whatever they want.

    2. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if this falls under the PATRIOT Act?

    3. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The constitution is the highest law of the land. Any laws that violate it are unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

    4. Re:Legally by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The PATRIOT act does not supercede the constitution. This man has a constitutional right to speak out against the government, telling his personal story about how he is being oppressed by the government is absolutely protected by the first amendment.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Legally by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Constitution is the law, and it has not been rewritten. The government can obey the Constitution, it can rewrite the Constitution, or it can completely ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. It has chosen the last option.

      We are ruled by criminals. Not just in the winking "crooks & liars" way, but geniune thugs no different than any other strongman government.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Legally by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.

      Good post. Well said. Thanks.

    7. Re:Legally by stewsters · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, until they pass an amendment, the government cant do shit. Here is the relevant law:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      He should make a public redress of grievances listing all the information he has and release it to the press. We need a Martyr to fight those in power. I just don't know if the operator of Lavabit wants to get crucified by parallel construction. As long as they have a culture of fear, people will still refuse to stand their ground. This is not unlike what the Germans experienced in WW2 and Soviets experienced soon after.

    8. Re:Legally by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Not that the government cares, so it might as well be valid for all we can do about it.

    9. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.

      I can't discuss a few things I've seen myself and I doubt very much that they'd let me off on first amendment rights.

    10. Re:Legally by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is whether he wants to take it to the Supreme Court from outside or inside a prison cell.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:Legally by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      We are ruled by criminals. Not just in the winking "crooks & liars" way, but geniune thugs no different than any other strongman government.

      This is true to any country today. Hell, it feels like the humanity degraded beyond middle ages in terms of politics. At least in middle ages the power was determined by birthright (which left it to chance really), nowadays only the ugliest psychopaths get into power.

    12. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.

      Never received a NSL, I take it? While the constitutionality of the gag order is still going through the legal system, the law, as currently written, does allow it. And it is a criminal offense to violate that gag order. No constitutional right is absolute (the infamous example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre).

    13. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >
      > This is not unlike what the Germans experienced in WW2 and Soviets experienced soon after.
      >

      The difference is that contemporary Americans have the power to change the government, whereas the Germans and Soviets did not.

      But sadly, even though their power is real, contemporary Americans will not use it. Silently, like sheep they will be led to their slaughter.

      I am ashamed, and frustrated, to live within such an acquiescent and emasculated society.

    14. Re:Legally by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, Hitler was popularly elected. Most Germans apparently thought he was going to 'save the country'.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    15. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's taking it to court in order to ask permission and avoid intermediate jail time.
      The court will fidn some way to say both yes and no.
      And the gov will likely continue.

      However, right now, he has the absolute right, and even the duty, to say exactly what is going on.
      What's the worst, temporary contempt? Ooooooo, big one there.

      Fact is, once these government secrets are outed, the government loses
      that power almost immediately, court overthrowing laws is just a formality.

      You have to make it so the court MUST in all good conscience side with you, the people... not the government.
      So stand up and rebel people, open your mouths and start talking, rebel against these bullshit extrajudicial FISA, NSL, and gag orders, print those orders on every wall, REBEL, REBEL, REBEL.

    16. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true according to the supreme court. Issues are weighted by the governments interest in it.

      Look at DUI check point case law.
      The court said that it was a violation of the constitution, but necessary enough to be ok.

    17. Re:Legally by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Yes, but try using the Constitution as a defense after trigger happy government agents have shot you multiple times (and your dog too).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    18. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should make a public redress of grievances listing all the information he has and release it to the press. We need a Martyr to fight those in power.

      Wrong. You had enough martyrs. You need to get your ass off your "somebody must do something for me" stance and call your representatives. Organize demonstrations. Write and join petitions. The whole problem the U.S. citizens have is their damn entitlement illusion that makes them think that somebody should really wipe their ass for them because it's becoming really dirty.

    19. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only was he popularly eleceted, the majority of parliament voluntarily gave him legislative power [1] and suspended themself. And the president suspended key civil liberties in order to fight the terrorist [2].

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933#Hitler.27s_speech_before_the_passing_of_the_Enabling_Act
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

    20. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only was he popularly eleceted, the majority of parliament voluntarily gave him legislative power [1] and suspended themself. And the president suspended key civil liberties in order to fight the terrorist [2].

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

    21. Re:Legally by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, until they pass an amendment, the government cant do shit.

      What color is the sky in your world, and how much do you pay for your fire department subscription?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In state ruled by law, "legally" and "safely" are synonymous.

      Obviously that's an utopia, an ideal, no country has such perfect standards. Unfortunately, USA is getting further and further from that ideal, day by day, step by step.

    23. Re:Legally by sabbede · · Score: 0

      Unless he's under a gag order. Those are, in principle, totally constitutional.

    24. Re:Legally by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      The Constitution is the law, and it has not been rewritten. The government can obey the Constitution, it can rewrite the Constitution, or it can completely ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. It has chosen the last option.

      You're forgetting that the Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary - a separate Power in practice, but part of the same shit these days. The government can thus do whatever they want, and have SCOTUS rule that it was all within the Constitution.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    25. Re:Legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We voted for Change in 2008, the problem is that it wasn't a change in the way the Government was operating, it was a change in a candidate's stated views. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html

  15. The death-knell of US cloud providers... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly the operator of Lavabit received a national security letter or warrant which he objected to.

    Now since Lavabit is based on normal mail protocols, the operator has the ability to see all the data when it comes in, and obviously with a warrant or NSL, the provider can be compelled to provide the information to the feds. But I suspect that the request was not just something mild ("This sleazebag's mail account") but something broader, given the reaction was to close down the service completely.

    In any case, this is also a great reminder of why the cloud, especially US cloud providers, can't be trusted. Companies who care about security are going to have to abandon the cloud and go back to insourcing their infrastructure.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lavabit is supposed to be a zero knowledge mail provider. It was kind of their selling point. This seriously sucks so hard. Now I have to update a million different accounts because of this crap.

    2. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Clearly the operator of Lavabit received a national security letter or warrant which he objected to.

      I would imagine (though don't know) that a warrant wasn't the issue. I don't know too many people who have an issue with respecting a warrant since that is, after all, due process. Law enforcement must go to a judge and convince the judge to issue the warrant based on the facts. The issue that most people have is the lack of a warrant in the vast majority of situations right now. I imagine that some gentlemen came knocking on Lavabit's doors, asked him to hand over the info, he asked to see their warrant and they said something to the effect of "we don't need a warrant!"

      Warrant-backed searches are entirely acceptable and part of the process of law enforcement. Warrantless searches are a problem in just about every conceivable way.

      (I assume I don't need to say that I have absolutely no clue of the specifics of this case and thus everything I'm posting is guesswork but, based on what's known, that guesswork is about as valid as anyone else's post...)

    3. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now since Lavabit is based on normal mail protocols, the operator has the ability to see all the data when it comes in, and obviously with a warrant or NSL, the provider can be compelled to provide the information to the feds. But I suspect that the request was not just something mild ("This sleazebag's mail account") but something broader, given the reaction was to close down the service completely.

      I own/operate VFEmail.net and consider Lavabit a 'peer' in the email space.

      I totally agree with your assessment. I've had to deal with requests and subpoenas, as I'm sure Lavabit has, and I've never been asked for broad access. In fact, the one time I did have to get 'in depth', I was specifically told by the agent in charge when everything initiated, "We are not installing any equipment at your site." In fact, he even offered to get me whatever I needed, and I declined, doing what was necessary to comply in-house. They only received what was requested on a signed subpoena, and were very clear they didn't even WANT anything else.

      I have a sinking feeling that sort of mutual cooperation is no longer the norm, and I wonder if I will be similarly backed into a corner. Unfortunately by closing, it forces our user's to seek refuge with providers who don't have any problem installing spy equipment.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    4. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like most people I do have a problem with secret warrants issued by a secret court all authorized by a law that if not in violation of the letter of the constitution, is most definitely in violation of its spirit.

    5. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by nweaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lavabit is supposed to be a zero knowledge mail provider.

      If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. It is perfectly possible to make a email system where the provider knows very little, but you need to change the basic email protocols to do that. Even PGP isn't sufficient, since it doesn't protect key portions of the mail (To:, From:, Subject:, message length, etc) from observation.

      If you receive normal email through SMTP, the provider must be able to read the email as it arrives. Similarly, if you offer a web interface to access, the provider must be able to read your email when you access it through the web interface, because the provider can always provide JavaScript that leaks any keys involved back to the server.

      --
      Test your net with Netalyzr
    6. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I think you right about American cloud providers getting screwed.

      Man, I wish slashdot would have ran that story I submitted. In Europe the article quotes over 50% are either cancelling their cloud contracts or reviewing them with US companies thanks to Prism!

    7. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Clearly the operator of Lavabit received a national security letter or warrant which he objected to.

      I would imagine (though don't know) that a warrant wasn't the issue. I don't know too many people who have an issue with respecting a warrant since that is, after all, due process. Law enforcement must go to a judge and convince the judge to issue the warrant based on the facts. The issue that most people have is the lack of a warrant in the vast majority of situations right now. I imagine that some gentlemen came knocking on Lavabit's doors, asked him to hand over the info, he asked to see their warrant and they said something to the effect of "we don't need a warrant!"

      Warrant-backed searches are entirely acceptable and part of the process of law enforcement. Warrantless searches are a problem in just about every conceivable way.

      (I assume I don't need to say that I have absolutely no clue of the specifics of this case and thus everything I'm posting is guesswork but, based on what's known, that guesswork is about as valid as anyone else's post...)

      It is not the warrant per say.

      The fact is this guy's customers are security minded and they know the NSA has a backdoor master key. So why should they do business with him anymore? He is not the only one who is losing business as a result?

      Regardless of whether you feel it is right or wrong it is having a negative effect on his company's pocketbook. What really would be the point of using his service if it is going to be snopped on anyway?

    8. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Warrant-backed searches are entirely acceptable...

      Not when a corrupt judge is rubber stamping them under orders from above... as is the case in most of these instances.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The answer is to turn the tables on them, "flip the script", as it were.

      Set up rotating surveillance teams at NSA, DHS, CIA, TSA, and FISA facilities. If one person/group is caught recording video, etc have another person/team standing by to take their place when theyâ(TM)re ordered to move on. Create and build up lists of personnel and dossiers on those seen coming & going.

      Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well. Record addresses, vehicle make/model/year and license plate number(s), etc. Correlate against public information and databases, DMV/court records, property records, tax and political contribution records, etc etc.

      Create a website to host and share this data publicly, and host it somewhere like Ecuador or Hong Kong that will tell the US government to go pound sand.

      Put THEM and their activities, travel, and associations in the spotlight for a change. Cockroaches and similar vermin hate bright light.

      It seems that the US government has chosen to fight terrorism not by addressing the root causes and the people actually at fault, but by simply becoming the biggest terrorists of them all and driving out the competition.

      The US government is far and away a much larger threat, by orders of magnitude, to the citizens of the US (and the rest of the world as well) than all the terrorist groups, foreign & domestic, combined.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Thud457 · · Score: 0

      Like most people I do have a problem with secret warrants issued by a secret court all authorized by a secret law that if not in violation of the letter of the constitution, is most definitely in violation of its spirit.

      All perfectly constitutional, authorized by the secret clauses in the secret Constitution that Nicholas Cage stole.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    11. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do encryption correctly and you won't have a ton to worry about. Do it poorly and you will.

    12. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Warrant-backed searches are entirely acceptable and part of the process of law enforcement.

      But only if the warrants are constitutional.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    13. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm glad this company decided not to help government thugs violate people's rights.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    14. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Arrogant-Bastard · · Score: 1

      Cloud providers always had (at least) one glaring security problem: their own employees. Those people always have some kind of access to customer instances -- logical, physical, network, something. Yes, those accesses can be restricted, logged, audited and so on...but anyone who has observed US business practices knows that costly measures like that are the first to be jettisoned when the race to the bottom begins. Managers will make the calculation that it's cheaper to risk an incident than to continuously pay the costs to avoid one, and they'll rely on lawyers to make it go away if/when it happens.

      Now there's quite clearly a second threat: demands from federal agencies that are intrusive, exhaustive, secret, all-encompassing, (nearly) unchallengeable.

      And that brings with it a third threat: this past week's disclosures have shown that numerous federal (and state) (and local) agencies are aware that the NSA and the DEA and others are clandestinely gathering data...and they alllllll want a piece of it. Eventually they're going to get it. (How do I know? Because it's never turned out any other way.) And some of them have absolutely horrible security track records of their own, which means they're going to leak it, lose it, and surrender it to the first bored hacker who comes along.

      If you can't compute securely, you can't compute PERIOD. And we now find ourselves with multiple existence proofs showing that cloud computing is most certainly not secure. I really don't think it's much of a leap to suggest that it's going to get more insecure every day.

    15. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It had to be a wire tap request. The only way to comply is either have a hand in spying, or prove there is nothing to tap.

      Most likely a broad request not by user or account, because you could set up new accounts daily I assume. Content scanning, and if it meets the criteria everything goes to the log.

      Discussing recent events would likely trip the wire, and you get what he described.

    16. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by superposed · · Score: 1

      Clearly the operator of Lavabit received a national security letter or warrant which he objected to. ... I suspect that the request was not just something mild ("This sleazebag's mail account") but something broader, given the reaction was to close down the service completely.

      As I read this article in the NY Times today I thought, "Hmm, how can the NSA search the contents of all e-mail leaving the U.S.? What about e-mail from one gmail user to another? Or messages sent between servers using SMTP with SSL? Surely NSA can't decipher those just by cloning the transmission links." Well, this may be the answer -- force the e-mail providers to hand over copies of any messages sent to or from machines with foreign IP address, or written or read via webmail on a foreign machine.

      But don't worry, FISA will prevent NSA from obtaining copies of purely domestic e-mail or keeping copies of these messages for more than a few seconds.

      Somehow I'd rather have a public discussion of what NSA can and cannot request, rather than relying on a secret court to protect our constitutional rights.

    17. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are specific trust-management setups where what you describe is actually impossible to do by the provider.

    18. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I believe the idea was that logs either go directly to /dev/null or get wiped frequently. It is entirely possible that he was ordered to retain logs and that he preferred to shut down.

      There is no reason that a provider MUST be able to read anything but to and from (and probably, ----BEGIN PGP...).

      If you choose to use a webmail viewer they provide, they MIGHT cheat and view the message, but there is no reason they MUST do so. They could give you clean javascript that decrypts the mail client-side.

      If you don't want them to know Subject, leave it blank. Obfuscate the length with some combination of chaff and splitting the message into parts.

    19. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by sjames · · Score: 2

      If the warrant came from the FISA court, it is nothing but a rubber stamp, so could well be objectionable to anyone who knows that.

    20. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Wow, how much did they pay you to say that? Did they offer your family a Cuban vacation?

      Isn't it just a matter of when, not if, they'll send you that letter? A few years from now, NSLs will probably be automated and as common as DMCA takedown requests.

      what make you think it isn't already?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    21. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what is so special about Lavabit.

      This exact thing happened a few years ago to another provider, Hushmail. Originally, it used to just only decrypt messages in a Java client, but I'm sure pressure for compatibility got them to allow the server to decrypt messages and present them directly to the user. Apparently, Interpol made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and HM handed over some decrypted messages from an alleged criminal.

      This isn't Hushmail's fault. The owners there didn't whine screaming to the press and wring his hands saying how persecuted he was because of this, then hose all his users by throwin in the towel and shutting the site down in an emo rage. He kept going on and Hushmail keeps chugging along.

      well maybe you would like it if you email provider and the nsa take turns screwing you form behind but i would prefer the email provider at least refuse.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    22. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      oh and don't forget that isp's will gladly ban any home servers and not give you a static ip, so that you cannot host you own email, and web server forcing you to use cloud based back-doored services.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    23. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      This exact thing happened a few years ago to another provider, Hushmail.

      How do you know that? Because you don't know what lavabit was ordered to do or provide.

      Suppose Lavabit was ordered to install software or turn over information (e.g. SSL key) that would potentially compromise all users of the service. It is certainly conceivable that they were ordered to do so. And that would be a hell of a lot different from turning over information on a few specific targets.

    24. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by countach · · Score: 1

      Actually, those secret clauses in the secret Constitution were ruled illegal by the double secret court on the basis of the double secret constitution. This was all ratified by the double secret American populace and signed off by the double secret el-presidente.

    25. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      Great idea. I'm sure this would not fall under espionage laws.

    26. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Great idea. I'm sure this would not fall under espionage laws.

      Since espionage involves gathering information on behalf of foreign enemies of the United States, then that would mean that the citizens of the United States would be now considered the same as foreign enemies of the United States.

      If that's the case, I think everyone would benefit in having the government make clear that US citizens, rather than being free citizens, are actually domestic-but-foreign enemies of the United States. At least then, the necessary changes can start being made going forward.

      Besides that, so what if they do arrest people? What, do you think standing up to a wildly out of control national government will be easy or not come with a price?

      How much is freedom and civil rights worth to you?

      They were worth much to a black lady that wouldn't sit at the back of the bus or others that faced riot police, fire hoses, and dogs. Were they crazy or stupid for making those stands against an oppressive government and taking those risks? This is just as much an issue of civil rights. It's just not race-specific this time, everyone's civil rights are at stake.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    27. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      I was and am aware that it's on behalf of foreign enemies. Once you start putting information out on untouchable foreign servers, it doesn't take a great leap to decide that's in fact who you're assisting. And it's not like you'd be exposing information that's in the interests of citizens, you're simply playing tit for tat by gathering intel on employees. You'd easily be considered a spy, and citizenship protects you from that no more than it does from a common crime charge.
      You would be screwed so fast, and I'm not sure anyone would support your cause. It really seems like a harebrained scheme to me, on par with demanding to take your weapons into NSA buildings. If you do find anyone crazy enough to do this with you, I suggest at least having a long hard think about it and doing a lot of research on every aspect, rather than jumping in head first while waving the flag around.

    28. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I was and am aware that it's on behalf of foreign enemies. Once you start putting information out on untouchable foreign servers, it doesn't take a great leap to decide that's in fact who you're assisting.

      Saying it does, even the US government saying it does, does not make it so. It's simply the authoritarian stance that anything that is kept out of the reach of the authorities is to be treated as treason or betrayal, as authoritarian regimes cannot tolerate citizens being able to communicate and exchange data securely.

      And it's not like you'd be exposing information that's in the interests of citizens, you're simply playing tit for tat by gathering intel on employees.

      Knowing who the people are that are personally responsible for massively violating the civil rights of hundreds of millions of US citizens is NOT in those citizen's interests?

      My! You certainly have a...unique...view of what constitutes the interests of US citizens. To take a line from the character "Morpheus" in "Matrix Revolutions"; "...I am glad it is not up to you."

      You would be screwed so fast, and I'm not sure anyone would support your cause. It really seems like a harebrained scheme to me, on par with demanding to take your weapons into NSA buildings.

      I'm not advocating going toe-to-toe with armed agents, or being "in your face" with tactics, except that everything be done to the letter of the law, like not trespassing, harassing individuals, etc etc. Something more along the lines of having different random students on successive days doing homework in a park near some facility and quietly noting comings and goings, times, etc. Unless they want to try banning any and all people from being in line of sight of any and every single facility/building/site and/or arrest anyone with a cellphone-camera or pencil & paper within sight?

      If you do find anyone crazy enough to do this with you, I suggest at least having a long hard think about it and doing a lot of research on every aspect, rather than jumping in head first while waving the flag around.

      I didn't make it to being over a half-century in age by being rash or stupid. Well, except possibly in replying to some /. posts/replies that I should not have wasted my time with. Violence and armed revolt is not the way to battle the type of tyranny that is emerging in the US. It will only give the government an opening to clamp down. It will take a more Ghandi/MLK style approach. It is, after all, a matter of civil rights not much different from their struggles. I feel that simply shining light on the individuals responsible for massively violating the civil rights of the entire population is very Ghandi/MLK-esque in style.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    29. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The answer is to turn the tables on them, "flip the script", as it were.

      Set up rotating surveillance teams at NSA, DHS, CIA, TSA, and FISA facilities. If one person/group is caught recording video, etc have another person/team standing by to take their place when theyâ(TM)re ordered to move on. Create and build up lists of personnel and dossiers on those seen coming & going.

      Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well. Record addresses, vehicle make/model/year and license plate number(s), etc. Correlate against public information and databases, DMV/court records, property records, tax and political contribution records, etc etc.

      Create a website to host and share this data publicly, and host it somewhere like Ecuador or Hong Kong that will tell the US government to go pound sand.

      Put THEM and their activities, travel, and associations in the spotlight for a change. Cockroaches and similar vermin hate bright light.

      It seems that the US government has chosen to fight terrorism not by addressing the root causes and the people actually at fault, but by simply becoming the biggest terrorists of them all and driving out the competition.

      The US government is far and away a much larger threat, by orders of magnitude, to the citizens of the US (and the rest of the world as well) than all the terrorist groups, foreign & domestic, combined.

      Strat

      "Espionage or spying involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage

      "The United States federal government ... applies the death penalty for certain crimes: treason, espionage,...etc"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Capital_offenses

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    30. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      That's all great and everything, but people coming and going in public spaces, in plain view, is not "Classified" or "Top Secret" information. At least outside some psychopathic, Kim Jong Il/Un style regime.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    31. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Even PGP isn't sufficient, since it doesn't protect key portions of the mail (To:, From:, Subject:, message length, etc) from observation.

      Well, yes and no.

      It is possible to use rfc822 leaving most of the headers absent (some things will get filled in in flight - "Received" for example).

      The SMTP (rfc821) "envelope" information has to be available to the MTA at least temporarily (MAIL FROM and RCPT TO). It can be protected in flight by TLS and the provider has no need to save it.

      If you receive normal email through SMTP, the provider must be able to read the email as it arrives

      No, just the RFC821 envelope information, not th RFC822 header or body information.

      I.E. a mail exchange could look like:

      MAIL FROM:<redacted>
      RCPT TO:<this has to be in clear, sorry>
      DATA
      Mime-Version: 1.0
      Content-Type: application/x-nsa-suck-my-donkey-balls
       
      some encrypted shit
      .

      The only thing that has to be in clear is the argument to RCPT TO.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    32. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      That's all great and everything, but people coming and going in public spaces, in plain view, is not "Classified" or "Top Secret" information. At least outside some psychopathic, Kim Jong Il/Un style regime.

      Strat

      It's certainly going to be considered at least 'confidential'.

      You propose spying on the spying agencies of a national power - and this is espionage.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    33. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      That's all great and everything, but people coming and going in public spaces, in plain view, is not "Classified" or "Top Secret" information. At least outside some psychopathic, Kim Jong Il/Un style regime.

      Strat

      It's certainly going to be considered at least 'confidential'.

      You propose spying on the spying agencies of a national power - and this is espionage.

      No it's not. It would not be recording the content or purpose of a person entering or leaving, it's simply "metadata", which, as the US government has repeatedly stated, is not the same thing and has no expectation of privacy, as simply seeing someone in public is not against the law, just as who called who where and for how long does not viilate the 4th Amendment.

      Collecting metadata is not spying. The POTUS said so publicly.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    34. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All perfectly constitutional, authorized by the secret clauses in the secret Constitution that Nicholas Cage stole.

      Well, then, we'll have to write a secret Declaration of Independence and start a secret revolution!

      "...whenever any Form of secret Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the secret Right of the People to secretly alter or to abolish it, and to institute new secret Government."

    35. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      "Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."

      You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.

      We're obviously not going to agree on this so no point going round and round but I'd strongly suggest you ask a lawyer before you take your own advice.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    36. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't Hushmail's fault. The owners there didn't whine screaming to the press and wring his hands saying how persecuted he was because of this, then hose all his users by throwin in the towel and shutting the site down in an emo rage. He kept going on and Hushmail keeps chugging along.

      Ah, okay, so selling the illusion of security is better as long as your customers don't know or care?

    37. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. It would not be recording the content or purpose of a person entering or leaving, it's simply "metadata"

      Not really. To be precise, "metadata" is "data about data."

    38. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."

      You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.

      If it was just I and one or two friends, that might be a real possibility.

      Thousands or tens of thousands all across the country?

      Might present a problem. Narrows their choice of reactions down to just a few, all of them bad from their POV.

      Besides, lots of people were jailed and even killed during the civil rights marches and protests in the 1960s. Why would this civil rights movement be any different?

      How much does one actually value freedom if one is unwilling to take any risks to gain or preserve it?

      You know, that whole "Freedom is not free" thing.

      I'm not about to throw my (or someone else's) life away for nothing, but I would risk death to preserve freedom. My father did in WW2. His father did in WW1. When it comes right down to it, people willing to put their lives, their fortunes, and their honor on the line is the ONLY thing that keeps people free.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    39. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      "Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."

      You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.

      If it was just I and one or two friends, that might be a real possibility.

      Thousands or tens of thousands all across the country?

      Might present a problem. Narrows their choice of reactions down to just a few, all of them bad from their POV.

      Besides, lots of people were jailed and even killed during the civil rights marches and protests in the 1960s. Why would this civil rights movement be any different?

      How much does one actually value freedom if one is unwilling to take any risks to gain or preserve it?

      You know, that whole "Freedom is not free" thing.

      I'm not about to throw my (or someone else's) life away for nothing, but I would risk death to preserve freedom. My father did in WW2. His father did in WW1. When it comes right down to it, people willing to put their lives, their fortunes, and their honor on the line is the ONLY thing that keeps people free.

      Strat

      I'm not saying otherwise.

      What I am saying is that if you or others intend to do as you advise then they should be prepared for the probable consequences of being thrown into a gitmo hole with no rights and quite probably not heard from again for a very long time, to say the least.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    40. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that if you or others intend to do as you advise then they should be prepared for the probable consequences of being thrown into a gitmo hole with no rights and quite probably not heard from again for a very long time, to say the least.

      That is a real possibility. That type of government oppression has always occurred when citizens demand their too-large and too-corrupt governments give up power & ingrained criminal behaviors. Look at the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s. This is another civil rights battle. Maybe the last one in the US for many, many generations, if this one is lost through fear and apathy.

      Where would we be now if those 1960s civil rights activists had stayed home instead of risking everything including their lives? This is simply another set of civil rights issues that happens to include everyone of all ethnicities and political parties that value civil rights.

      The way things are going, "internment camps" of one sort or another are a near-certainty if people do nothing and don't make waves. Anyone with even a very modest general knowledge of history could tell you that is what is coming. Heck, it's not even new for the US. Two past US Presidents have ordered large masses of people held in camps and their property seized based on racial ethnicity and/or a families' national origins generations back. Wilson was infamous for imprisoning anyone who spoke out against his policies.

      It's always easier to halt a national nose-dive into insanity by an out-of-control government before the dissident-camps, neighborhood checkpoints, and mass grave sites are operational than after.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    41. Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      Well I appreciate the replies. I think you're less crazy now, but I still think you're dancing with the devil by considering stalking individuals and spreading the info. Notice that when Manning's material gets leaked, they take care to not expose individuals. He's in enough trouble as it is.

  16. Service was immediately suspended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I getting this right? They shut down their email service from one moment to the other without warning users about it, without letting users backup their email?

    1. Re: Service was immediately suspended? by chill · · Score: 1

      If you use a service like Lavabit and need advance notice to back up your email, there is something seriously wrong.

      The Offspring's "Pretty Fly For a White Guy" probably describes you perfectly.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re: Service was immediately suspended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also unfamiliar with this provider. Can you please elaborate what you mean with "a service like Lavabit".

    3. Re: Service was immediately suspended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Different AC)

      I suspect they mean "a service where all your mail is stored on their servers", rather than a server that will store your mail until you download it, save it locally, then delete it from the server.

    4. Re: Service was immediately suspended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a zero knowledge encrypted email service and chill is completely off base. People use this service as their main email address and some accounts can't get their email reset because they tie back to lavabit. If you think 1 day of notice before shutting down a paid email provider is too much to ask, then you are seriously wrong. Seriously, it's not as though asking for privacy and people not snooping on your email is outrageous. What you just said is that if a service like the Post Office shut down without any notice, you deserve it because you expect that the post office won't open your mail.

    5. Re:Service was immediately suspended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently so, but we don't know what happened behind the scenes. Next time choose a provider that hosts in a free country, .... oh wait

    6. Re:Service was immediately suspended? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most anyone using the service as anything but a status symbol probably appreciates if it goes poof rather than being handed over.

    7. Re:Service was immediately suspended? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I getting this right? They shut down their email service from one moment to the other without warning users about it, without letting users backup their email?

      Of course they were prohibited from warning their users right from the start as that would have defeated the purpose of the government action. So you know who to thank for that.

  17. Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business? He built that! Now, if he's been a multi-trillion dollar bank, the government would leave him alone, hell, he'd be telling the government what to do.

    This is just another example of "might makes right, we're a bully, and we're going to push the world around, usa #1 F-yeah!"

    We are living in a police state; there's no doubt about that at this point.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business?

      Is this a rhetorical question? Republicans are not the party of small government, they are simply the other party of big government.

    2. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the current degenerate incarnation of the Republican party is NOT the party of Eisenhower. Nixon's racist Southern Strategy and Reagan's courting of religious extremists have driven out anyone who believes in individual rights and has an IQ over room temperature. They now make insane claims like that their religious liberty has been taken away if they can't oppress gays. They don't even know what freedom is.

      We desperately need sane opposition to the Democrats, and the Republicans just don't qualify anymore.

    3. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because the only rights that the Republican party cares about are (a) the right to property, specifically when it relates to rich people not being taxed; and (b) the right to bear arms. Caring about other rights makes you a dirty communist hippie traitor.

    4. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone in either of the two major parties know enough about technology to know that this would be an issue they could potentially latch on to.

    5. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered that this could be function of spin? There are bat shit crazy people in both parties. Whenever Sheila Jackson Lee for example opens her mouth, chances are incredibly high that she will say something idiotic and/or crazy. It just doesn't seem to get the publicity in the news that you're reading as much as the idiotic things some of the Republicans say.

      This is not a partisan issue though. The house vote on limiting the NSA that failed shows who is principled and who is in politics for power. The people who voted to kill that bill - irrespective of party - need to be booted out of office and preferably thrown in prison (I can think of no one better to prosecute as traitors than them).
      This is a great opportunity to find a little common ground in the parties. The left can marvel that for the first time in their lives they agree with Glenn Beck, and conservatives can feel the same way as they are baffled that they are agreeing with the likes of Michael Moore for the first time in their lives. You're both fighting the same bipartisan "political leadership", don't squander this opportunity to find some common ground. You'll probably be surprised at how much common ground there is. Sure there will be differences, but they are often more in the methods, not the goals (e.g. poverty - both sides want less, one by giving out assistance, the other by creating jobs). When you understand this, discussions can be a lot more civil and actually solve problems. Just please get out of the left/right comfort zones - after Snowden, those zones disappeared.

    6. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what you're saying is that you really want sane opposition to the Republicans, and I agree, the Democrats are not that, either, because enough of them are complicit in the status quo also.

    7. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP is saying nothing because every time they do there is a rash of stories calling the segregaionists and racists, just last week it was Rangle doing so.

      The GOP strategy is letting their opponents hang themselves and not get in the way. The middle class has been devastated, Obamacare is a wreck on every possible level, the NSA spying is directed by Obama, the IRS is still targeting people as was discussed in Congress today (yes, still today), Obama is refusing to meet with Putin despite saying differently when he ran for office, it has been revealed that V Jarret (of the White House) was the one to order the military to not help the ambassador in Bengazi.

      I really can't think of anything Obama has done right since getting reelected. The GOP is not going to say anything and have the focus turn on them. If you are upset about that, blame yourself for your calling them racists 100s of times over the last 5 years. Just look at a couple of the other responses if you think I'm off my rocker, Jeff Flanagan called them racists despite them saying or doing NOTHING.

    8. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      It's because the only rights that the Republican party cares about are (a) the right to property...; and (b) the right to bear arms.

      Given property and self-defense, all other rights follow naturally, at least within a system of negative rights (freedom from interference). Freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search or seizure, the right to due process, and all the rest are just specific applications of your property rights.

      On the other hand, if you subscribe to the idea of positive rights (the "right" to make others provide you with food, shelter, health care, etc.) then the objections to private property and people capable of defending themselves are understandable; but such a philosophy is inherently inconsistent anyway.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot:
      (c) And you're white
      (d) And you're Christian
      (e) And you're a demographic that's likely to vote Republican.

      If you're not any of that they actively try to destroy your job, livelihood, and way of life.

    10. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We desperately need sane opposition to the Democrats, and the Republicans just don't qualify anymore.
      We desperately need sane opposition to the Republicans, and the Democrats just don't qualify anymore.

      The US is fscked.

    11. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The republicans only control 1/2 of 1 of the 3 branches of government..... Why didn't the democrats embrace freedom and liberty in 2008.... instead, they spent 2 years forcing obamacare on the American people... In 2008, they had majorities in both houses of congress and control of the white house.... What a travesty to continue to support democrats and their broken down bus.

    12. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      It's because the only rights that the Republican party cares about are (a) the right to property, specifically when it relates to rich people not being taxed; and (b) the right to bear arms. Caring about other rights makes you a dirty communist hippie traitor.

      Crazy thought maybe they, the republicans that is, are purposefully allowing things to get worse, to avoid a population of proverbial boiled frogs, while simultaneously protecting gun rights in hopes that all shit will break loose when this administration pushes to far.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    13. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2012, Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the extension of the Patriot Act:

      http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

      And we of course know what happened in last months vote to limit the NSA:

      http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412

      Why people think the Republican party is against "big government" is ... inexplicable.

    14. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Because it only happened today.
      2. Even if all the Republicans did, would CNN or NBC or the AP report it?
      3. At least 60% of elected Republicans (and an even higher percentage of elected Democrats) are worthless. They don't care about freedom or business or anything else. What do they have to gain personally?
      4. No one would listen. Someone would find a non-white person involved with the NSA somehow and the Republicans would be called racists for opposing the NSA agenda.
      5. Americans don't care unless their government checks are threatened. The media doesn't care unless there's a racial or "gay rights" angle.

    15. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because the only rights that the Republican party cares about are (a) the right to property, specifically when it relates to rich people not being taxed; and (b) the right to bear arms.

      As long as you use those arms only for robbery or shooting up school children and family members. Don't think of turning them against the government (which is why they are constitutionally protected). In a similar vein, don't use your free speech against the government, you terrorist.

    16. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Excuse me but the right to property is the very most fundamental. You can have free speech all you like but if they can take your soap box, a hell of a lot of good it will do you. This was his equipment, his company, he should be able to use it to send any message he wants, he should be free to provide services to anyone he likes, and deny them to anyone he does not three letter agencies included. Property rights are exactly what we are really talking about here.

      When you live in fear the government can seize your asserts and livelyhood for indefinite periods on any trumped up charge while you are driven into bankruptcy fighting them, non of those other freedoms matter! Property rights and their absolute sanctity should be the most important issue to anyone who really wants a free society.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    17. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We desperately need sane opposition to the Democrats, and the Republicans just don't qualify anymore.

      I don't think who is in The White House makes any big difference.

      USA ((in fact, the world) is ruled by corporations. The president is just an actor playing in a stage play written by corporations. The actor, when is in the stage, may express his part with his own style, even change lines, improvise etc... as long as the spirit of the script is respected... that is, corporations are each day more powerful and richer.

    18. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by jittles · · Score: 1

      have driven out anyone who believes in individual rights and has an IQ over room temperature.

      I assume you're using Celsius?

    19. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business? He built that! Now, if he's been a multi-trillion dollar bank, the government would leave him alone, hell, he'd be telling the government what to do.

      This is just another example of "might makes right, we're a bully, and we're going to push the world around, usa #1 F-yeah!"

      We are living in a police state; there's no doubt about that at this point.

      All states are police states.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    20. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by thoth · · Score: 1

      In addition to Jeff Flanagan's response, another factor is competing business interests. For every cloud provider that might lose revenue in the future, there are 2 defense contractors making profits now.

    21. Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? by OwMyBrain · · Score: 1

      Nixon's racist Southern Strategy and Reagan's courting of religious extremists have driven out anyone who believes in individual rights and has an IQ over room temperature.

      This is particularly insulting to any Republicans that use the metric system. Fortunately not many of them are scientists.

  18. so much for freedom in america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is someone really still stupid enough to believe America (especially) or any other western country (Americas whore-states) are free? Jesus, US is heading into a new, corporate-style of fucking fascism. It will still be fascism in the end. And all the people were to afraid to speak out.

  19. All at once by thereitis · · Score: 2

    If you can't smother the shitstorm in the media, you might as well get all your dirty work done in short order so this rash of privacy and human rights abuses can becomes last week's news as soon as possible.

  20. Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.

    Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution. They can "pass" all the bullshit "laws" they want, but the fact remains that there is not a soul in the federal government who has the power to supersede our Constitutional Liberties. The only, ONLY legitimate way to alter the content of said document would be via a Constitutional Amendment approved by 2/3 of all state legislatures, or by the formation of a Constitutional Congress. Neither of these events have occurred, therefore your right to tell us that the NSA is trying to force you to turn over your encryption keys stands firm. Fuck you Stasi dogfuckers ('cuz I know you're skimming this).

    FYI, by making such a statement, and doing as they tell you, you're only helping them perpetuate the myth that they can do this kind of shit and get away with it.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it is not a myth, the government is getting away with ignoring the constitution and committing crimes including seizing propery, incarcerating people without warrant, hurting people, etc.

    2. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Doesn't matter when every branch of government is complicit in the violation.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

      Upheld by the Supreme Court.

    3. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      via a Constitutional Amendment approved by 2/3 of all state legislatures

      Three-quarters. It takes 3/4 of the States to approve an Amendment.

      Two-thirds of the States are required to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments (which still require 3/4 of the States to approve them).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they can through you in a dark hole. Then if a (not secret) court actually hears your 1st amendment claims it can be drawn out so much that you have your life destroyed by lawyers and press. People want to live their lives and not have to be examples or pillars of strength. That's why these laws get passed in the first place. If I were in his shoes I don't think that I would do anything different.

    5. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could declare him an "enemy combatant" and throw him in Gitmo or a naval brig without trial.

    6. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, until it's challenged and while the executive decides to follow through, it's law. We can petition the government for redress of our grievances, but that takes time and money, both of which are in short supply today. Or we can vote, but then again, the general public are too lazy and -- again -- don't have the time to follow and keep track of who's doing what to vote 'em out. It's a conundrum on how we're going to course correct things. Me? If I had the money, I'd run a huge nation wide compaign that features all the crazy stories of the last few years. Basically it'd be "Fuck the Dems, Fuck the Reps, Vote in the Libertarians". If within four years every single elected official in the federal government were voted out, along with ALL of BOTH parties...imagine the change. Yes, we can!

    7. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys will have stand up to your wacked-out government all at once and all together. You are asking *one* guy to take a pretty big hit - the government will surely lock him up and possibly torture him if he steps out of line.

      I'm not an American but I'm doing my part. I no longer travel to US and spend money there. Maybe if enough of us did that, and said WHY we no longer feel safe in the US, things might change. Doubt it but got to try.

    8. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as long as the supreme court will back up congress they certainly do have that authority.

    9. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      The myth is that it's legal. What the NSA is doing is criminal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, until it's challenged and while the executive decides to follow through, it's law.

      No, it's still illegal, whether or not the criminals in office choose to care about the law.

      It's a conundrum on how we're going to course correct things.

      We're not. They control all three branches of the government, the media, and the entire party apparatus. There are literally no workable options. It's all downhill from here until the tyranny is so unbearable that the average person prefers to fill the streets with blood than to continue submitting.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have passed illegal (unconstitutional) laws. The NSA is following those laws, in violation of the constitution, and claiming legality to the letter of those particular passed laws.

    12. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, thank you for the clarification.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There were three built in ways to control Congress from exceeding its constitutional boundaries (aside from the crazy thing about having Congress granting authority to the judiciary to overturn its decisions... technically a power it can grab back for itself at any time if it choose):

      ** Senators being chosen by state legislatures. In theory, this was to be a huge check against the federal government as senators could be recalled, censured, or at the very least not chosen again if they pissed off the legislature of the state they were from. While party politics certainly could rear its head (and indeed did), senators chosen in this manner didn't have direct issues of dealing with lobbyists and other similar "corrupting" issues. This was however eliminated with the passage of the 17th Amendment where the U.S. Senate simply became a disproportionate and smaller copy of the House of Representatives.

      ** States could engage in articles of secession. Unfortunately Abraham Lincoln pretty much ended that as a viable option through what could be arguably called an unconstitutional method.

      ** Citizens technically have the 2nd Amendment. This is a "nuclear option" for citizens to destroy the government itself if it got out of hand. Unfortunately the interpretation of this amendment has so completely gutted the original intent that its role in scaling back unconstitutional acts of Congress has pretty much been destroyed as an option.

      In terms of civil rights, the last line of defense is now just the U.S. Supreme Court.... and when they are in the tank with Congress (as is pretty much the case right now.... explicitly stated as such in numerous recent judicial opinions) there is no hope at all.

    14. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      as long as the supreme court will back up congress they certainly do have that authority.

      No, as long as the Supreme Court will back up Congress on creating illegal legislation, they are complicit.

      Criminal A 'having the back' Criminal B does not legitimize their crimes.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Hatta · · Score: 2

      That's what I said, they're criminals. I could pass my own "laws" saying that I have the right to take all your stuff, and then take all your stuff. And then I could claim that it's "legal" because I followed the letter of my "laws". But I'd still be a thief, because I have no authority to pass laws.

      Similarly, no one in congress has the authority to pass laws that violate the constitution. When they do pass such laws, and enforce them, they are criminals just as surely as I am in the analogy above.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    16. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      May I assume tat you will fund such challenges for these violations? Or are we all talk?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The only amendment that I think is currently being observed, mainly out of practical considerations rather than any sort of effort to try and find ways to avoid its observation, is the 3rd amendment.

      I suppose it is just a matter of time before the military bases start requiring citizens in the area to involuntarily put up soldiers with food and shelter.

    18. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      They can and will get away with it, because they have more and bigger guns than we do. The war is over, my friend. We lost.

    19. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      You would think that would be true but another approach that is working out well for the Administration over time is stacking the court (literally) in their favor. Get enough judges together who decide that A is no longer the valid interpretation of the Constitution or any of its amendments and B is now the officially recognized standard, all of a sudden you are living in the grand ole U.S. of today. I'll never understand there being variations of interruption on ANYTHING when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. They fucking wrote it simple enough even a Kindergartener can understand it, I assume precisely so shit like this couldn't happen.

    20. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is a glaring flaw that can do just this.

      It's called a treaty, and in the Constitution is treated as Constitution level law.

    21. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The only amendment that I think is currently being observed, mainly out of practical considerations rather than any sort of effort to try and find ways to avoid its observation, is the 3rd amendment.

      Depends on how you define "soldier."

      If we only define it as actual humans in uniforms, then yea, they respect it.

      However, if we also include "agents," such as the kind one would find within a computer network...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      May I assume tat you will fund such challenges for these violations? Or are we all talk?

      With my life, if need be.

      What about you? Will you stand up and put your ass on the line for Liberty, or are snarky retorts all you bring to the table?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      They can and will get away with it, because they have more and bigger guns than we do. The war is over, my friend. We lost.

      With an attitude like that, yes you have.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by chihowa · · Score: 1

      16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

              The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

              The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

              Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

              A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

              No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    25. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.

      Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.

      It seems it boils down to: is the Constitution enforceable if the political powers break it?

      captcha: dictator.

    26. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.

      No constitutional right is absolute. The infamous example is that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. The rights are implemented in laws that congress passes. Until a law is ruled unconstitutional (eventually by SCOTUS), bad laws can be passed, and enforced.

    27. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by spongman · · Score: 1

      actually, these bullshit laws are legal until the supreme court rules otherwise. however, since the these laws are secret, and the FISA court that deals with them is secret, and has already ruled that everything the NSA does is legal, it's going to be a warm day in hell before any objection ever reaches the supreme court.

    28. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by spongman · · Score: 1

      the problem is that a statute is not unconstitutional until the supreme court says so.

    29. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading is hard. Let's go shopping!

    30. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      *But when you talk about destruction
      Don't you know that you can count me out*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    31. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by countach · · Score: 1

      Well.. actually it is unconstitutional even before the supreme court says. The problem is that most people tend to assume it is valid until the supreme court says. That is the problem. If everyone in the NSA said, hold on, we can't do what we are doing, it is most likely illegal, then things would be ok. The problem is most people make the back to front assumption that anything the government passes is legal. I suppose there is some justification for that in that presumably the government has lawyers which gave it the go ahead, whereas most of the rest of us are not lawyers.

    32. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > there is not a soul in the federal government who has the power to supersede our Constitutional Liberties

      Yeah, well, if they do, then they can. And they have... so yes, they can.

    33. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      :-)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    34. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might feel differently after the US military nukes (e.g.) Topeka as "an irredeemable terrorist stronghold".

      Wanna bet that they wouldn't?

    35. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by ZOmegaZ · · Score: 1

      Just for the sake of pedantic accuracy, the process is as follows:

      EITHER:
      2/3 of both houses of Congress approve an amendment;
      OR:
      A Constitutional Convention is called which then proposes amendments.

      After one of those two things has occurred, 3/4 of the states must ratify the proposed amendment.

      I say this mainly to combat the myth that a constitutional convention could unilaterally change the constitution without subsequent approval by the states. It couldn't. The convention is an end-run around Congress, not around the states.

    36. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      What if the Supreme Court, that is, the entity responsible for deciding what the Constitution means, sides with Congress?

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    37. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Then they are just as guilty as the CongressCritters.

      Like I said, no one has the authority to violate the Constitution, either by direct assault or by trying to alter the intent of the document through "interpretation."

      The Founders wrote it so that every lay man who could read would know what his rights are, without the need for someone else to "interpret" them.

      A 1776 copy of Webster's might come in handy, though - some terms, such as "well-regulated," have developed new meanings since the Constitution's writing.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    38. Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's legal because there are laws that permit it, being a criminal means breaking a law. It hasn't been proven in court that the NSA have broken the law so therefore, they are not criminals until proven guilty. The NSA's acts of oppression are immoral to basic human freedom and are guilty of perverting freedom in the eyes of the public but are innocent of breaking the law until proven guilty.

  21. hmm... freedom is expensive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the front page of Lavabit: "Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fund".
    Well, i am just a Greek, but defending your constitution (the whole of it, not just a part) against internal and external threats is also expensive and you have to pay the price helping the American Defence by sharing some of that costs - you have enemies so those rights you always demand must be reduced a little.

    1. Re:hmm... freedom is expensive! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      In the USA we actually pay our taxes so we expect that sort of thing to be included. Reducing our rights does not help fight any enemies.

  22. Scam ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this Levison guy legitimate ? He is asking for money, maybe this is a scam ???

    1. Re:Scam ??? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      he is legit, it the gov thats not.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  23. so to the inhabitants of the home of the brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that flag still fly O'er the land of the free ?

  24. How the media will spin this by harvestsun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Lavabit - an encrypted email service which is used by pedophiles and terrorist networks - was shut down after refusing to give the government access to important data that could have lead to arrests."

    1. Re:How the media will spin this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " that could have prevented innocent children from being harmed."

      Shesh, you spin like a first grader :)

    2. Re:How the media will spin this by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      "Lavabit - an encrypted email service which is used by pedophiles and terrorist networks - was shut down after refusing to give the government access to important data that could have lead to arrests."

      At least from what Google News indicates, it's more like "ignore" than "spin". The one news article I could find from a US newspaper was this one from the Sioux City Journal, which is an Associated Press story not spun to the extent you suggest. It does speak of Snowden as a "leaker" rather than a "whistleblower". There's a New Yorker blog post that's somewhat opposed to the NSA.

      And, in fact, there's an article from a Kansas City public radio station that quotes a Wired article that says "Court records show that, in June, Lavabit complied with a routine search warrant targeting a child pornography suspect in a federal case in Maryland.", so it's not saying that Lavabit is a pedophile haven.

    3. Re:How the media will spin this by msmonroe · · Score: 1

      That might be true but they are "legally" only able to go after specific people that they know are violating the law. This is supposed to be the law. Unfortunately what is actually happening is the the NSA is combing through your emails and when they find something they refer it to the appropriate agency who then busts you and builds a "Parallel construction" case against you. This can be drugs, IRS, etc. anything that you might be doing that the government might build a case against. This is not against a particular pedophile or terrorist. The law is supposed to say if you have evidence against a particular person then you can get that persons records, signed off by a judge.

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/uk-dea-irs-idUKBRE9761B620130807
      Unfortunately because of the Patriot act and the legislation that the government passed after 9/11 we are turning the country into a police state. The terrorists are destroying us from within without even being here.

  25. Story leaves out important bits by SailorSpork · · Score: 5, Informative
    Also from the front page:

    What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

    This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

    Sincerely,
    Ladar Levison
    Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC

    Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fund here.

    He leaves a link to donote to their legal defense fund. In other words, he's still fighting it, but in secret shadow court.

    1. Re:Story leaves out important bits by markjhood2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for highlighting that link. I just contributed. It's time for slashdotters to put their money where their mouths are.

    2. Re:Story leaves out important bits by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is not a "secret shadow court."

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Story leaves out important bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worship his divine shadow

    4. Re:Story leaves out important bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... And PayPal is going to freeze that fund as "fraud", of course. :D

    5. Re:Story leaves out important bits by shentino · · Score: 1

      How many people would donate more if the feds hadn't taxed the crap out of them?

      Or if the corporate overlords weren't skimming the cream off the payroll and leaving the watery whey for the rank and file working class?

  26. Dropped that step some time back by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The government obey the law

    No they don't, they have taken to just ignoring the law, using it primarily these days as a tool only against those they disagree with or for partisan attack.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  27. Expect more knuckle twisting by bradrum · · Score: 2

    The message here is very clear. You either go along with what the executive branch wants you to do, which is plainly goes against the 4th and 1st amendments or you are a traitor. The stunning lack of previous resistance by corporations that provide internet, phone, and telegraph service to NSA's agenda have created the expectation that corporate "people" are willing to cough up data that lets the US spy on its citizens on a massive scale without any kind of objection.

  28. So much for freedoms. by boorack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, instead of fixing its behavior (or at least make it a bit less visible), US government (and its corporate sponsors) decided to go out and spy+opress its citizens officially. You're at the tipping point, folks. Your lovely government is now switching from covert police state to overt tyranical regime. This process will propably take another year or two until you'll get pretty much where nazi Germany was in 1939. Your favorite TV station will inform you every day how many "enemies of America" were caught/jailed/murdered this week and you'll fear every day if FBI squad will raid your house because of some phony suspicion.

    Having said that, I'd recommend Americans, especially young ones to have second passport and be ready to leave this shithole when things go full retard (eg. your fucked up government starts some mega-war and will need as much cannon fodder as possible).

    1. Re:So much for freedoms. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Having said that, I'd recommend Americans, especially young ones to have second passport and be ready to leave this shithole when things go full retard (eg. your fucked up government starts some mega-war and will need as much cannon fodder as possible).

      You serious? This shithole is still the first place in this world for the launch of the next iGadget!

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:So much for freedoms. by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      Having said that, I'd recommend Americans, especially young ones to have second passport and be ready to leave this shithole when things go full retard (eg. your fucked up government starts some mega-war and will need as much cannon fodder as possible).

      Pfffthahaha... And where would they go? Seriously, name a country which isn't a USA puppet state already or isn't run by tyrants?

      Also, what World Wars have taught us, is that when the whole world burns you cannot run away.

    3. Re:So much for freedoms. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The time to leave was actually 8-12 years ago. Perhaps a bit more. But when you check you will find that your reccomendation to "young" people was correctly addressed. If you are much over 28 it becomes progressively harder to immigrate to a desireable country. The world is overpopulated, so no country needs extra bodies, they only need skilled individuals that won't end up costing too much in social services.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:So much for freedoms. by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Sadly, even that is no longer the case. New iThings are generally first released in a dozen or so key markets on the same day. Which, due to time zones, basically means New Zealand, Australia and Japan are the first. I recall some articles about some idiots travelling from the US to the Apple Store in Sydney (Australia) when the iPhone 5 was released, just to be among the first... (/facepalm)

    5. Re:So much for freedoms. by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend a second passport for people of any nation, regardless. If you can get one. They are handy things to have and open a lot of doors for working in interesting places. EU passports are particularly valuable as it allows you to freely work and live in any EU member state - one passport, many countries.

      I have dual US and Australian citizenship which in case of mega-war isn't very useful (as the ANZUS treaty means if one of the two is at war, the other is as well: see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) But it's a nice thing to have for economic reasons if nothing else (Australia was largely unaffected by the financial collapse in the States 2007 onwards, but is starting to struggle a bit now just as the US economy is rebounding). Options are always a good thing. And international travel/work is something I recommend everyone do at some point in their lives.

    6. Re:So much for freedoms. by am+2k · · Score: 1

      The world is overpopulated, so no country needs extra bodies, they only need skilled individuals that won't end up costing too much in social services.

      That's not true. At least in Europe and Japan, there's a critical shortage of young people for work and paying for social welfare. Only the xenophobic think that there are too many foreigner families coming in. Unfortunately, there are a lot of those right wing nuts in those places.

    7. Re:So much for freedoms. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And that's the *reason* only young people are desired. You didn't argue against my point at all. Older people are required to be *increasingly* skilled if they are to be accepted. The exact amount varies by country, and also by various other criteria (e.g., how many relatives you have there).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:So much for freedoms. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Where do we go?

      And perhaps more importantly, how do we get through the TSA?

  29. FOX has his back by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 2

    When is FOX news going to come to defend Lavabit against the oppressive Obama regime?

    Surely the government violating the constitution to get at Lavabit's data and thus compeling them to shut down is as outrageous as Obamacare and all of the businesses FOX claims it is destroying.

    1. Re:FOX has his back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox will probably report it.
      MSNBC will pretend it didn't happen.
      CBS will claim that George Zimmerman used it to send racists emails and have examples of such.

    2. Re:FOX has his back by shentino · · Score: 1

      I think FOX's silence is rather telling in this case.

      Who owns FOX anyway?

  30. Just yesterday I was thinking ....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just yesterday, I was thinking - What if am I the owner of some internet company (email, service provider,.....) and feds send me "THE LETTER".
    I would shut down the company, rather than surrender to the feds.

    Today, I found out someone indeed closed the company for the same reason.

    1. Re:Just yesterday I was thinking ....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know its easy to say but as Im that way inclined , if I was in the same boat Id be more likely to be publish it all and be damned except for one thing.

      There is no one left in the American media with the balls to publish it so why risk your quality of life and famalies if you have one.

  31. Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm a Lavabit user, and this is the absolute first I've heard of this. We had no warning and since yesterday the mail servers have been down. I assume we'll never get them back either.

    I appreciate the sentiment and all, but you could have done it with a bit more professionalism than just disappearing one day, leaving those of us with Lavabit accounts completely in the lurch.

    1. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah he could give you warning, and then wait for the drone-express or gitmo. Why would you be smart enough to use encrypted email, and dumb enough not to have a backup of your email archive?

    2. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so quick to condem. Given his previous statements that may not have been an option for him. Most people are not in a position to risk violating whatever legal duress that is being applied to him.

      Cheers!

    3. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use a service where they can get your private key?

    4. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Arrogant-Bastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it would be wise to consider that perhaps the reason you had no warning was that Lavabit's operators also had no warning. (That is, no warning of the specific event which caused them to make the decision to shut down. Obviously they knew something was afoot, as we can see by the posted message from them.)

      The operators of Lavabit have gone waaaaaay out on a limb for you today. They're risking ten years of work, their livelihood, their finances, and their freedom. I think -- even though this obviously inconveniences you and others -- you might want to give them a little slack. I think it's obvious on inspection that they're doing this on principle, and THAT is worthy of respect -- doubly so when many of their peers have chosen otherwise, as is now becoming more clear every day.

    5. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, that's "thanks a bunch US government". Can't really blame him if his only other choice was prison time. Bottom line, you personally must be responsible for your private keys.

    6. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did you a favor (so apology on your part is in order).

      Here's why: From what I can get reading between the lines, feds started to intercept _all_ user's logins. And because those passwords are required to decrypt user's data stored on the server, the only way to stop feds hoovering all your mail is to abruptly stop all user access.

      If, on another hand, they've posted say a 2-day warning - everybody would have logged in to save their stuff and compromised their accounts in the process.

    7. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would you have preferred to find out 6 months from now that carnivore had a copy of all of your email?

      If you're facing a secret court order to log everything from this point forward, your only ethical option is to make sure there's nothing to log.

    8. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're paying for a secure email. If leaving it open would compromise that like his letter indicates, it would seem like shutting down immediately is the only way for him to keep his end of the deal. What would you propose he do?

    9. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they came back why would you assume that the gestapo isn't running them?

    10. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Lavabit user, and this is the absolute first I've heard of this. We had no warning and since yesterday the mail servers have been down. I assume we'll never get them back either.

      I appreciate the sentiment and all, but you could have done it with a bit more professionalism than just disappearing one day, leaving those of us with Lavabit accounts completely in the lurch.

      Yes, I'm certain you would have been much more pleased to get a knock on your front door in a week or two from some three-letter agency overstepping it's legal authority that read your "encrypted" emails and now considers you an e-terrorist under some form of new unconstitutional law or Act. Yes, I'm certain that would have been far more fucking "professional" for you.

      Ever consider that Lavabit's actions were done to protect YOUR privacy?

      Way to ASS-U-ME there.

    11. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Lavabit user, and this is the absolute first I've heard of this. We had no warning and since yesterday the mail servers have been down. I assume we'll never get them back either.

      I appreciate the sentiment and all, but you could have done it with a bit more professionalism than just disappearing one day, leaving those of us with Lavabit accounts completely in the lurch.

      Hey I was a lavabit user and I lost some contacts and email. Get over it, they did the right thing by you and me as a user as frustrating as it was.

    12. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      I feel they have upheld their professionalism more than just about every other major U.S. company. Since we don't know which companies feed Uncle Sam with every byte of information, we have to assume all of them are doing it. Lavabit is now known to not have been feeding the government every byte of information but only because they have done something really drastic. They have done something no other major company has really had the balls to do.

      These people are probably going to lose not their company, but their jobs and the jobs of everyone who worked for them. They are risking their freedom to defend your freedom. (They are very much risking going to jail over this.) They have honored the Constitution. Then you start out with a subject line of "Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit." and whine about your email.

      Show them some fucking respect and tell them Thank You for going to bat to protect the privacy of your email. I wish I knew for certain that my email provider did that.

    13. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      but you could have done it with a bit more professionalism than just disappearing one day

      Don't feel bitter, they didn't even tell their staff what was happening. From Thursday:

      We started moving mail to a new storage system today, but this is taking longer than expected -- we hoped to get everything finished during the off-peak times but things didn't work out that way. Sorry.

      Peter Lavabit on E-mail Discussions Forum

    14. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> I assume we'll never get them back either.

      Never ever run a compromised service. Never. Really never.
      This system has been compromised. Their duty is to stoip the service immediately, and restart it once clean. It may be clean when the company has moved out of the US, but there's much more work for it to be secure ( a ncomplete new mail protocol with a certificate system for example)

      --
      aaaaaaa
    15. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try *thinking* before you type, you'll look like less of a prat?

    16. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Ever consider that maybe Lavabit committed seppuku and took your secrets to the grave with it, because the feds had them at gunpoint with an NSL or something and this was the best they could do?

      Professionalism is a lost cause in an emergency.

    17. Re:Thanks a fucking bunch Lavabit. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Even that's not enough to avoid gitmo or drone express.

      The feds are already pursuing criminal charges as it is for shutting down.

  32. Lieber Herr Kommissar by msmonroe · · Score: 1

    Dieser Fall ist klar,
    Lieber Herr Kommissar,
    Auch wenn sie and'rer Meinung sind:
    Den Schnee auf dem wir alle
    Talwärts fahr'n,
    Kennt heute jedes Kind.
    Jetzt das Kinderlied:
    “Dreh dich nicht um, schau, schau,
    der Kommissar geht um!
    Er hat die Kraft und wir sind klein und dumm,
    dieser Frust macht uns Stumm.”



    This case is clear,
    Dear Mr. Commissioner,
    Even if you have a different opinion:
    The snow on which we all
    ski downhill,
    every child knows.
    Now the nursery rhyme:
    “Don't turn around, look, look,
    the Kommissar is out and about!
    He has the power and we're little and dumb;
    this frustration makes us mum.”

  33. The internet needs more encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much that even the service providers can't see the data.

    It'll happen.

    1. Re:The internet needs more encryption by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      not at this rate.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  34. racist law too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the white bourgie soccer mom's I've seen driving with cell phones attached to their head in my north chicago suburb, the only person I actually know who got a ticket for driving while talking was a cell phone, was an american citizen of mexican decent.

  35. So what alternatives are left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The http://prism-break.org website currently only lists three alternatives to Lavabit. One of them is also hosted in the US. So that leaves only https://mykolab.com/ and http://www.autistici.org/en/index.html

    MyKolab seems to be great: hosted in Switzerland and 100% Open Source that can be self hosted. Is there anything else or should I stop looking?

  36. So where are the recommendations for alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a former Lavabit customer and I was really hoping for a slew of recommendations for alternative privacy-minded email providers, based in stable countries outside of the US. That's most of the reason why I'm reading through the comments here but so far the only option I see is VFEmail... seems like a decent service, but they're more focused on spam than privacy and they're US based.

  37. This is evidence "Lavabit" worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is evidence "Lavabit" worked.

    1000 people ask for his source code and make the take downs very, very complicated.

  38. Denial of public oversight is unconstitutional. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We do know that the actions of the government in this case are illegal, because Lavabit's ability to respond to this search has been silenced by the coercive power of the government.

    Any judicial programs which are exempted from public oversight are unconstitutional by nature.

    After all, if the means used were legal, reasonable, and would be supported by civil society, there would be no reason to hide them from the public. Right?

    1. Re:Denial of public oversight is unconstitutional. by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      Rubbish! You're conflating congressional oversight with public oversight and they are far from the same thing.

  39. Are the Kardashians on tonight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care about this. It doesn't affect me. I'm sure the government is just trying to protect me anyway.

    When do the Kardashians come on?

    Sincerely,

    99% of Americans

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. What _is_ an "encrypted email provider"? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    What is/was the difference between this email service and others?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:What _is_ an "encrypted email provider"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is/was the difference between this email service and others?

      This one actually provided some measure of security for those who used it, and that's why it had to shut down.

    2. Re:What _is_ an "encrypted email provider"? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your contribution, AC. I have known you for many years and always felt your reputation was unfairly earned and the people who accused you of crapflooding, over-specificity, and blabbering endlessly, were just projecting. I know I was, when I flamed you for it. Or maybe I am looking at history through rose-tinted lenses, and you were actually guilty back then, but I would hate to have the indiscretions of my youth thrown in my face. My, how the years have changed us, AC. So, it's this. This is what it's like to be old. I have changed, and so have you.

      Over-specificity. As if. If only they could see you now!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  42. Donate to the defense fund! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Redundant

    They are still fighting this and are asking for donations - see the PayPal link at the end of http://lavabit.com/

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Donate to the defense fund! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Redundant? Seriously?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  43. Email provider outside US? by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    What about using a non-US based email provider? Does that give any extra expectation of privacy?

    It seems like the EU, and Germany in particular, takes privacy much more seriously then the US. Even without encryption, it seems like it's harder for authorities to do casual snooping on email contents in the EU.

    I realize that the NSA is hoovering up all email traffic anyway, so at some level it makes no difference. Still, it seems that there are some usage barriers that keep local law enforcement from getting completely open access to email right now. And there is some security through obscurity. I expect this will get much worse fairly soon, since that's the way we're headed. Email based in the EU might offer some level of protection in that circumstance.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Email provider outside US? by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Although there are stronger laws in Europe, I would not bet any money on that. Compare this story on the web (published in 2010) with this story (published in 2012).

      For those who don't want to read both articles: Basically, in 2010, Europol was to oversee (secretly) the financial information that was going to be given to the U.S. and the law makers were promised bulk information wouldn't be passed to the U.S. As of 2012, it has been discovered that bulk information is being passed to the U.S. My logic is this: if we can't trust financial data to be passed properly, how can we expect any other information to be passed (or not passed) properly? Frankly, I'm surprised how unhappy Europeans are about how the U.S. is handling Snowden while being strangely quiet over the whole debacle with Morales' plane. That does not pass the sniff test with me.

      Disclaimer: I'm an American living in Germany. I cannot read German yet so I don't know specifically what the news is saying concerning this. I do know Snowden is in the German Google headlines more often than in the U.S. Google headlines.

    2. Re:Email provider outside US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to disappoint you but non german-data is fair game for BND/NSA even in Germany. Though you could try to get a email address ending in .de which is per default assumed to be german.

    3. Re:Email provider outside US? by hweimer · · Score: 1

      It seems like the EU, and Germany in particular, takes privacy much more seriously then the US. Even without encryption, it seems like it's harder for authorities to do casual snooping on email contents in the EU.

      Actually, the opposite is true. In Germany, every e-mail provider with more than 10,000 customers has to maintain an eavesdropping infrastructure that essentially allows for warrantless snooping, which can be authorized by any prosecutor, and carried out by every police officer. The provider is gagged and is not even allowed to disclose the number of cases. I'd assume that other EU countries have similar laws.

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
  44. Is it time yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe not this moment, but I feel it will be soon.

  45. Shut down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    TFA says "suspend operations." So maybe contributing to the defense fund is a good idea?

    1. Re:Shut down? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope it doesn't get seized by the feds.

  46. Apropo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
  47. encrypted email provider? by multi+io · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always assume email encryption only makes sense if it's end-to-end, so what does an "encrypted email provider" do? Conceal sender & receiver addresses? Guarantee encrypted transport?

    1. Re:encrypted email provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always assume email encryption only makes sense if it's end-to-end, so what does an "encrypted email provider" do? Conceal sender & receiver addresses?

      Ok, the parent needs to be modded way up.

      This story is yet another example of how people are improperly using the cloud as anything other than a public storage locker.

      Encryption is useless unless it's entirely on the client side. Once that data leaves your client, it must be encrypted. If not, then it's a public disclosure.

      You don't give your private keys to a vendor -- that's nonsensical. Yet that's what almost everyone is doing when they move their apps to the cloud. We have an entire generation of people who think that the cloud can securely provide "apps". It cannot. We have a massive re-education effort ahead of us. It's time to begin.

    2. Re:encrypted email provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this specific case, they encrypted message in storage on their system. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

    3. Re:encrypted email provider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Lavabit stored your e-mails with encryption so that a seized server wouldn't expose your data.

  48. Back to Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the fuck am I going to migrate all of the accounts (amazon, etc) associated with my lavabit e-mail address?

  49. Cryptocat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Enigmail
    GnuPG

    A little research and you'll be able to provide yourself reasonable privacy.

    It might not stand up to the greatest efforts of the NSA, but it will slow them down some.

    Also, disconnect.me because the NSA isn't the only one snooping.

    Fuck 'em all.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Cryptocat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little research and you'll be able to provide yourself reasonable privacy.

      So private that most people you email won't be able to read your messages!

  50. Alternative to Lavabit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a good alternative to lavabit?

  51. Concrete reality by Red+Jesus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My name is Anthony Coulter. I signed up for Lavabit on October 5, 2009 with the address anthonycoulter(at)lavabit.com. I chose Lavabit very consciously. My university email address was about to expire and I had concerns about Google's privacy policies. Lavabit was created specifically for privacy-conscious people. They offered server-side encryption to paying customers; when I became a paying customer a year or two later I decided to check that box because, hell, why not?

    [Note that I never did ask how server-side encryption worked. They said that things were rigged up so that they could not decrypt my on-server email even if they were coerced into it. My guess was that they used a hash of your login password to decrypt your email. I didn't know whether it was true or not, but I didn't think it really mattered. Apparently it did matter.]

    I use my Lavabit account for everything. My bank statements are mailed to it. Most of my internet login IDs created since 2009 depend on it. All of my friends use it. And now it's gone.

    I last checked my email around 9pm on Tuesday, August 6. When I woke up the next morning my connection attempts to the Lavabit server timed out. That was inconvenient; I had to send some information to my parents about an upcoming family reunion, so I sent them a text message promising to email it to them when the service was restored Wednesday night. It wasn't; I finally sent the email from an old family account I used back in the late 1990s. When I woke up *this* morning and Lavabit was still down, I did a couple of Google searches to see if anyone else noticed that an email provider had been gone for twenty-four straight hours. I found this discussion, which I quote for the benefit of people who will read this post long after the forum has ceased to exist:

    RobertPaulsen
    Junior Member
    Join Date: Aug 2013
    has anybody considered that if edward snowden did use lavabit then the Gouvernment is maybe interested in his mails which he wrote and sended to Glenn Greenwald. Maybe they seized the server and waved with a national security letter. just a thought !

    This was posted at 10:55pm last night; when I saw it this morning I instantly dismissed the poster as a childish Internet revolutionary. The idea that the Federal government would clog up Lavabit for an entire day and a half just to get at Snowden is silly! They can't disrupt business like that!

    Then I ran another Google search for "lavabit down" before getting off work today, and... here we are. Emails sent to my lavabit account still don't get bounce warnings, so noone who's emailed me since 9pm on Tuesday will know that I didn't get their email, or that I never will. I also have to go through the long and tedious process of reassociating all of my Internet accounts with a new email address. But which provider will I choose? I still don't trust Google. I don't know what I'll do yet; it was only two hours ago when discovered that my four-year-old email address had been taken down by the Federal government.

    I just donated two thousand dollars to Lavabit's legal defense fund. (The confirmation email from Paypal just arrived in my old Cox account.) I cannot prove this to the Internet, and it's debatably silly for someone so privacy-conscious to want to do so. But at some point we will have to take this issue seriously. I watched the Snowden news from a distance; I didn't say or do anything about it because it wasn't really my problem. Now I lost my email, and if I had used IMAP this would have been a tragedy of enormous proportions.

    --Anthony Coulter, a.k.a. Red Jesus

    1. Re:Concrete reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn how to how to do endpoint S/MIME or GPG encryption, then send it using any email provider. Sever side is inherently a MITM. Good for Lavabit to standup to this.

    2. Re:Concrete reality by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      But which provider will I choose? I still don't trust Google.

      Running your own mail system isn't particularly tricky. I've run mine for almost a decade now, off my podunk little ADSL account (I think you USers have trouble with TOS not allowing you to run services - not sure if that's still the case?) I have an MX backup running with no-ip, which collects my mail if my server's down for a spell, so the unreliability of my system's not an issue.

      It doesn't really give me any immunity from government actions (they can come take my personal box just as easily, or seize my domain name) but it does mean I'm not going to lose access due to government's attention on some random person who happens to use my provider.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Concrete reality by Red+Jesus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been modded up, which is fantastic, but to be honest I was hoping to provoke discussion.

      What I was thinking when I wrote the above post (and was more sober) was that this issue is affecting regular people. I'm a real person! I live in an apartment in midtown Atlanta! I have a trilobite collection and I like to take long walks. I'm preparing dinner for some friends tomorrow evening. I'm a savvy Internet user, like the rest of you, who reflexively discounts conspiracy theories. But my email provider was just taken down because it provided too much privacy.

      Godwin's Law prevents me from typing many of my thoughts right now. I know from experience that everyone's weary from constant political combat. I was even in Washington D.C. (well, Richmond; the DC subways weren't working that day) for the Stewart/Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity, which emphasized the importance of getting along with your neighbors, even if they disagreed with your politics. And besides, I didn't do anything about the Snowden revelation, even though I consciously understood it was a Bad Thing.

      But here I am today with no email because (we assume) the Federal government presented Ladar Levison with an ultimatum: either break his own security and tell nobody, or stop providing the service altogether. (Fortunately Levison did what I paid him to do: he stood up for my privacy and let Lavabit go down.) But we can't be sure that this is what transpired because of Levison has been under a gag order for six weeks. This is a terrifying concept.

      Has anyone on Slashdot watched Babylon 5? It had a long story arc in which the Earth government gradually became more and more repressive. There was an episode in the middle of Season 3 called "Severed Dreams" in which the Interstellar News Network (ISN) was forcibly brought offline by the military. Right before they went off the air, an anchor came onscreen, apologized for interrupting, reported that some colonies had declared independence and that the president didn't want that information let out, and that many things had been going on for a year that ISN was not allowed to report. Some explosions damaged the building, ISN went offline, and a week later, it came back with a new (completely unfamiliar) news anchor who calmly explained that terrorists had faked the previous broadcast.

      That's how I feel about Lavabit right now. I've been watching the Snowden news for months. Then my email went down... And then suddenly I'm hit with this speech that for the last six weeks, Lavabit's founder has been fighting to protect my privacy while under a gag order, and twice has tried to get that order lifted. But he failed and now I have to go change my email address everywhere it's used. Wow! I never imagined that the drama on the news, where the United States tried to promise Russia that we wouldn't torture one of our own citizens were he extradited, would have a direct impact on my insignificant life! But it did. And apparently Lavabit has been fighting for the last six weeks, while I've been going to work, trying to talk pretty girls into dinner, and going jogging around the neighborhood. This is real! These issues aren't going away. I ignored them and I lost my email account. What will I lose next?

      Please, Slashdot. Please, please, please take this seriously. This isn't just another petty Internet squabble. This is serious business. I got caught in the crossfire early because I cared enough about my privacy to use Lavabit. Other people got caught in it earlier---Manning and Snowden because they had both moral courage and access to incriminating information, and probably many other people of Pakistani descent because that's just how things go. I got caught in it today. When will the rest of you get caught? GMail users are safe from shutdowns because even in 2009 we knew that Google didn't care about your privacy, but I wouldn't be surprised that the stakes will continue to increase as time wears on.

      Maybe I deserve to be alone in this mess because I left Manning, Snowden, and probably untold others in the lurch when they needed support. Yes, I probably do...

    4. Re:Concrete reality by guises · · Score: 1

      Disappointingly, I haven't seen many suggestions for Lavabit replacements in this thread. However, in answer to your question about providers, this one looks decent enough to me. It's more expensive than Lavabit, but they offer a few more services and they're based in Switzerland so are presumably that much more secure. I'd suggest that you also register a domain name with an anonymous registrar and use that rather than the one that the service provides - that way if something happens to compromise the new service you won't lose your email address.

      I'm in the same boat you are (although I don't have two thousand dollars to donate). Good luck.

    5. Re:Concrete reality by spacefight · · Score: 1

      No, Switzerland is not "much more secure" when it comes to online security and privacy. There are lawful interception laws which requires most if not all of the bigger service providers to register and to implement a lawful interception interface into their email infrastructure. Much tougher laws are in the works, such as keeping meta data, email content and much more for 12 months. Again - Switzerland isn't the best place to feel safe online.

    6. Re:Concrete reality by jason777 · · Score: 1

      I heard the woman who runs startpage is forming startmail, a secure private email site. I might check it out when its up.

    7. Re:Concrete reality by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      If everyone agrees with you, there isn't much to be said.
      Everyone is already fighting it with what they've got.
      Still, my hat to you sir.

    8. Re:Concrete reality by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      I take you seriously. I cross-posted your post to facebook. Sorry I didn't ask your permission first, but I thought this should circulate outside the geeks at slashdot. I wonder how this affects hushmail or are they even US? Don't know.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    9. Re:Concrete reality by clorkster · · Score: 1
      I'm fairly certain that people can still assemble peacefully offline. I should probably check the news in the morning to be sure...
      I wouldn't go to Atlanta, but this is a major enough shift that I'd show up in Chicago to publicly register discontent. As one poster wrote:

      US government ... decided to go out and spy+opress its citizens officially. You're at the tipping point, folks.

    10. Re:Concrete reality by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      I feel for you, bro. I really do, but I don't have much to add to the discussion, though. I've seen this stuff coming for a long time (as have a number of other people on Slashdot). The real people who need to be convinced are outside of Slashdot. That's where your words need to be taken. While you're out there telling your story as to what happened, please remind them that both political parties are responsible for this issue. I have tried to deal with family who think $POLITICAL_PARTY1 is somehow better than $POLITICAL_PARTY2. So far, nothing I say works. I might use your example to see how that works on them.

      Be prepared for people to deny what is happening. Check out this comment earlier up in this thread. I responded to it, but will it help? Probably not. Words like this fall on deaf ears.

      When you're liquored up, I suggest reading the following (because it's really depressing to read when you're sober):

      Dictator's Handbook and Little Brother. Little Brother specifically addresses why your words may fall on deaf ears.

    11. Re:Concrete reality by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      Any reasonably civilized country has law enforcement. The difference is: Switzerland follows the rules. Email interception requires a valid warrant, there's no secret FISA court whose orders you cannot talk about, etc.

      If you're doing illegal things, then you are better off with a provider in a country where law enforcement is, shall we say, sporadic.

      If you just want to ensure your privacy, then a Swiss provider is absolutely fine.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    12. Re:Concrete reality by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      I've been modded up, which is fantastic, but to be honest I was hoping to provoke discussion.

      What I was thinking when I wrote the above post (and was more sober) was that this issue is affecting regular people. I'm a real person! I live in an apartment in midtown Atlanta! I have a trilobite collection and I like to take long walks. ......snip.... GMail users are safe from shutdowns because even in 2009 we knew that Google didn't care about your privacy, but I wouldn't be surprised that the stakes will continue to increase as time wears on.

      Maybe I deserve to be alone in this mess because I left Manning, Snowden, and probably untold others in the lurch when they needed support. Yes, I probably do...

      Hidden in this thread might be the old phrase about breaking eggs to make an omelet.
      If you are feeling like Humpty Dumpty you need to quickly put to paper contact information and back up your data because your identity could all but vanish in a pink-foam of bits as your ISP is assaulted and your personal machines "taken into custody" for analysis.

      As for Google and privacy I suspect they are more on your side than you might expect. They are not going to be happy if customers vanish overnight... Their entire business model depends on them being the only one to generate derived products based on your personal information flow. Their data collection is so large that requests must be focused and specific (i.e. a good subpoena by most measures).

      Phone company "meta data" is more troubling as it is the social graph that stitches thousands of other random bits of stuff together. It also makes parallel discovery fabrication impossible to dissect if done with simple care.

      Consider the darn inventory wireless tags used by retailers for any and nearly all products. The readers that detect theft can log all the tags associated with all entry and exit. The set of tags presented over time very clearly identifies you. These short range readers and services are often managed by a third party where the inventory tags and your are well cross referenced.

      Like many cars you just walk up and the car unlocks. With RFID tags easy to poll at the cash register, combined with your near field cell phone ID, cell provider ID, CellPhone WiFi MAC address and more no one will be anonymous.

      Little of this bothers me today except that there are almost no limits on corruption in the future. Without checks and balances today Kristallnacht is a simple secret report generator away. Adolph was duly elected but because it was convenient to too many, elections were suspended.

      Troubles that festered from WW1 surfaced once the influenza pandemic relented and one of the great bureaucratic evils prevailed for too long. In part this explains to me why privacy law in Germany is held in high regard.

      As for Lavabit replacements good luck. Even stenography is challenged by the flood of mp3 and other lossy media tools where DRM is inserted and cloud storage of images and more will have visited compression and more levels of post processing than subtle stenography tricks can survive.

      For now -- well I dare not divulge tricks that might work for fear I would aid and abet a bad guy.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    13. Re:Concrete reality by jittles · · Score: 1

      This is why I have been running my own domain and mail service since 2000. At least I can always keep my email address if a hosting provider causes problems.

  52. This is big. by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    This story is only two hour old and has already exploded. Snowden has officially become a martyr. Brazil is sounding less and less like a fictional film and more like a scary prophecy.

  53. Congress 'does' have the authority... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    Up to the point the Supreme Court slaps them down.

    Do you want to test the legality of some law that (you believe) violates the (nth) amendment? You have to be prepared to fight it in court, and fight it to the Supreme Court in many, many cases.

    And the Supreme Court may allow the law to stand.

    State secrets privilege, particularly the seminal United States v Reynolds
    National Security letters and Warrant canaries (canaries may or may not be termed legal; a NSL may instruct to "not take down the canary", for instance)
    Children's Internet Protection Act (found constitutional)
    Communications Decency Act (portions struck down)

    It's a crap shoot. The state secrets privilege, for instance, was clearly illegal behavior but the court allowed it to stand.

  54. What he's telling you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is your emails are unencrypted in the hands of ?
    Time to run if you can. Just not to Russia!

  55. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Far too many people on Slashdot need to do some foreign travel, or at least a good glass of perspective and soda. The US is far from perfect on, well, all fronts. In terms of privacy there have been some very disturbing developments lately (though anyone who thinks it is the first time needs to learn history). However that does not automatically mean the US is horrible, the worst country in the world, that other countries have no abuses, or at least none worth mentioning.

    Russia has real, real problems in terms of human rights, basic freedoms, government control, and so on. They are sliding towards the bad old days of a soviet like system at an alarming rate. It is far worse than anything happening in the US. Now none of that means what is happening in the US is good, but please stop with the bullshit.

    Honestly it is a literally childlike view of things where there is only a binary system of morality: good and bad, and they are always opposed. So if the US does something bad they are bad and that means anyone against the US must be good.

  56. It seems Snowden used lavabit - seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/lavabit-snowden/
    That explains a few things.

  57. You wanted a Communist in the White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you have gotten him. He is doing what every tyrant does - shuts up any opposition... Congratulations - this should be your ideal world.

  58. NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know how the NRA claims it needs guns for the time when the government oppresses its people? Well grow some balls, make good on your claims, prove that you aren't just cowardly rednecks and fix your fucking country!

    1. Re:NRA by cluedweasel · · Score: 0

      The problem is, a lot of those people who squawk loudly about their right to arm themselves to the teeth will quite happily turn around and support NSA snooping, TSA over-reach and anything else they feel makes them safer from "terrorists". Personally, I wish they would fight as hard for the 1st and 4th as they do for the 2nd.

    2. Re:NRA by Aryden · · Score: 1

      bullshit, we're raising hell about this shit too.

    3. Re:NRA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't hear gunfire.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:NRA by RoboJ1M · · Score: 1

      Read that in school-mistress voice:
      Like "*tuts, taps foot, sing song voice*, I'm not hearing any gun fiiiiiiiiire"
      (*stares at shoes*, yes miss, sorry miss, won't happen again miss, *loads gun*)

    5. Re:NRA by Aryden · · Score: 1

      having them, expressing one's right to have them, and being pissed at the government doesn't mean you just go running around shooting people.

    6. Re:NRA by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Please stop screwing up The Narrative (TM) with sensibility.

    7. Re: NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a moron of the highest order.

      There is no sane argument that the current situation in any way shape or form justifies an armed insurrection.

  59. Fuck Obama by sexconker · · Score: 0

    Fuck Obama Fuck Obama Fuck Obama Fuck Obama Fuck Obama

    Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

  60. Why is anyone surprised? by NReitzel · · Score: 2

    I don't fathom why people seem so shocked by this turn of events.

    The liberal politician Gore Vidal once remarked that "Now that the Great Red Menace is gone, the government can turn it's attention to the real enemy, which is now, and always has been, The People."

    It always impressed me that when the Soviet Union fell apart, a huge number of "security" workers in GDR's Stasi ended up out of work. It seems that similarly to the end of WWII when rocket scientists were looking for a place to ply their trade, the US government stepped in and acquired their talents.

    I've always thought that our government - the US government - should have named the agency who handles US security the UStasi. They've learned well from our East German mentors, and are in the process of jailing enemy combatants forever without trial, intercepting everyone's email and phone calls. They don't file body odor samples "for the dogs" yet, but they want to take DNA from everyone that is arrested, conviction or not. They want warrentless searches and that pesky Fourth Amendment is just an inconvenience. Who cares about the right to not self-incriminate, cough up those passwords, or else. General Michael Hayden, former head of UStasi (sorry, NSA) wanted to be able to use "aggressive interrogation."

    This seems a sad turn for my country, the land that I love. Jefferson is probably rotating at high speed in his tomb.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

  61. A poor example by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 0

    If the owner really feels so strongly that the government is committing crimes against the people and infringing on his Constitutional rights then he should grow a pair and show the world exactly what was going on. Yes it will mean sacrifices and will probably mean going to another country first before blowing the whistle. But I guess the big comfy house and fancy car are more important than doing the right thing. Because if people just meekly hide in the shadows and let the government get away with such things then the government will continue to take away your rights and freedoms. People have to start standing up and doing the right thing. But it doesn't require as much courage to sit back, say that the government won't allow you to talk about things, and hope that someone else steps up. I certainly hope that the owner doesn't have children because it's a poor example being set for them.

    1. Re:A poor example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He already "grew a pair", dumbass--he shut the thing down *before all his users had a chance to log in and expose their credentials to the Feds*.

  62. No by eWarz · · Score: 2

    Disclaimer: I didn't read the article. I call bullshit. If the good ole US of A came knocking on my door threatening me, i'd tell them to stuff it, and alert every major media news outlet in the country to the fiasco. You want my users' info? Sure, get a warrant and get in line pal. Sounds like scaremongering to me. Just wanting to stir up the slashdot crowd. Note that i'm not siding with the government at all, but this scaremongering has to stop if anything is going to get done.

    1. Re:No by eWarz · · Score: 0

      Want my take on what really happened? The guy wasn't making any money off his site...so he blamed the USA for his shit business model.

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I didn't read the article. I call bullshit. If the good ole US of A came knocking on my door threatening me, i'd tell them to stuff it, and alert every major media news outlet in the country to the fiasco. You want my users' info? Sure, get a warrant and get in line pal. Sounds like scaremongering to me. Just wanting to stir up the slashdot crowd. Note that i'm not siding with the government at all, but this scaremongering has to stop if anything is going to get done.

      No offense, but you're not even worth arguing with.

    3. Re:No by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I didn't read the article. I call bullshit.

      I call troll... which is surprising because your last few posts didn't quite look troll like. If you're not a trolling: keep in mind that although what you say could be true (maybe he is just scaremongering or as your next post suggest just had a bad business going), your tone needs to be adjusted a lot. I applaud you for bringing in the seed of doubt, but there are a lot of things going on in the country that just smell really funky and you shouldn't just dismiss this with so much sureity.

    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that squawking to the media thing, buddy.

      I'm sure they'll be able to hear you just fine all the way from your cozy little cell at Gitmo.

      Idiot.

  63. Come to Cotse.net by anasciiman · · Score: 1

    Any Lavabit users (or anyone, really) is welcome to check out https://www.cotse.net/ as an alternative privacy service.

    --
    Think of me when you shave your legs...
  64. The Human Rights Watch by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All these do not have to come to pass if not for that "Human Rights Watch"

    They are the one who revealed Snowden's use of Lavabit when they intentionally posted Snowden's message along with his email addy, edsnowden@lavabit.com

    The "Human Righs Watch" are helping Uncle Sam more than helping Edward Snowden.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  65. Not Obama's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Bush Jr's fault of course. Oh wait, maybe our commander and Chief has finally started to accept his own responsibility in matters (wishful thinking I know I know).

  66. how about working the system backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Provide a side door to notification as an API across all these services where on connect your browser can ask "was my information requested or released to the US government?", the usual (or not) answer being "no", while the answer in any other case is "no comment".

    If you see "No Comment" make up your own mind.

    =)

  67. Your starry eyes will dry out, very soon by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You claimed that you have just moved to US four months ago, and the other fella, four years.

    Both of you are so gung ho on the States.

    If neither of you are trolls, good for you !

    I came from China. In the 1960's I swam to Hong Kong, soldiers were shooting at us back then.

    Via Europe I ended up in the Unted States of America in the late 1960's.

    When I first landed there, indeed, the States was SUPER WONDERFUL, there were democracy, there were human rights, there were freedom, and people can demonstrate on the street.

    It was indeed a very stunning experience for people like me from a communist country.

    My happiness in America lasted about 10 years, and then it gradually faded.

    Not that I got tired of America, but as I stayed longer there, I get to know America more.

    The more I know, the more I understand that the so-called "Freedom", "Democracy", "Human Rights" are mere slogans - as the government of the United States of America does not care one way or another about these things.

    The people of America are great, though. But my American Dream was thoroughly disillusioned by the time of Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

    By then, America was no longer practice the same thing it preached, and the American press was no longer upholding the same standard as their predecessors in the 1960's and 1970's.

    I finally got out of America, back to Asia (but not back to China) in year 2003.

    I've had enough of the hypocrisy.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Your starry eyes will dry out, very soon by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      I'm certainly no troll. Keep in mind that our experiences are quite different in that I moved from a country that's ostensibly quite similar to the US (well, in comparison to China). Additionally keep in mind that I'm not really 'gung ho' about it. I didn't move to the US because I thought it'd be a better place to live than Australia. It was driven purely by family/personal reasons (to be closer to my wife's family as they get older).

      I had to take a pay cut to move here (same position in the same company), I lost vacation days etc. Lots of downsides. Not something I would have done if not for family. I do have some good friends here though and spending a few years in another country is always a character building experience :) And given that noone likes to hear people mindlessly rubbish their home country, I do try to see and comment on the good aspects as well as the bad. Noone wants to be that obnoxious foreigner that's always complaining about how everything is different from home (like the stereotype of Brits who move to Australia, for instance!)

    2. Re:Your starry eyes will dry out, very soon by sudon't · · Score: 1

      We Americans are brainwashed from an early age to believe they live in a "free country" and that the US is the "greatest country in the world." The level of ignorance of my own country about the rest of the world continues to astound me. And of course, people in the rest of the world are fed the same line as well through the popular culture media machine. But when foreigners get here, they at least have a basis of comparison.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  68. uhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest you really get up to speed on "conspiracy theories".. I quote those words because it's basically all fact. It's governmental dis-info types that like to toss those words around.

    Sorry to hear about your mail though. Running your own mail server seems to be the only solution to all of this madness

    oh and 9/11 was an inside job

  69. Smarter Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wish the damned terrorists were smarter. If terrorists were smart, they would use effective crypto, stego, and physical dead drops to avoid such pedestrian techniques as packet sniffing and disk imaging.

    Oh wait. Maybe the terrorists are smart? Maybe they noticed that the IRS is funneling all that money to the NSA, and the best way to terrorize the Americans is to turn all that power back into itself, like some sort of uber idea cooked up by Captain Kirk to save the Enterprise from aliens.

    So they use plain text on purpose, so the NSA will do their dirty work for them.

    Or it's a false flag and the whole thing makes the X files look pretty real.

  70. Wow by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Many thanks for your thoughtful post. Yes, people need to take this stuff seriously. The problem, of course, is that the vast majority are not even aware of the problem. "Look, Nascar this afternoon!".

    Snowdon's single biggest impact is that he has made more people aware of the issues.

    In the meantime, the practical solution is for everyone - most especially US citizens - to start using services based in other countries. If this trend really gets started, it will have a real effect on several large US companies, and they have the pocketbooks to make their displeasure known in Washington.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  71. Here's some practical advice in return by infernalC · · Score: 1

    "...I'm planning to do a cross-country trip quite soon with a car..."

    Just a bit of advice I got from my sister this March after she and her husband drove from Boulder, CO to Decatur, IL:

    "Never accidentally drive across Kansas. It's surprisingly wide."

  72. They can get away with it by aepervius · · Score: 1

    " Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution. " no but they can get away with it, if they put you in prison for treason or violating some security letter, and your appeal (made harder by the inability of fully communicate all evidence due to security reason) will take years, maybe a decade or two. Your life will be ruined and don't expect any meaningful compensation. It takes somebody insanely courageous to try to go for that. And your governement (and probably mine) can so get away with trampling and pissing on our respective constitution.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  73. Are any US presidential election winable ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not trolling jsut asking. From my unschooled eye, the repucrate and democain absically do a very similar politic : screw the lower and middle class, and suck the dick of their corporate master. Now from time to time they both do something which looks like they are doing their electoral promise, like obamacare, but in the long run the most important stuff, like first amendement , fourth amendement , are trampled.

  74. Sad but true by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    Britain is still a lovely, free country but could be a full-blown police state within a couple of years thanks to the decimation of our constitution by Blair & Brown.

    With the Liberal Democrats having made very little progress in restoring our rights and checks & balances on govt, I fear for the future.

    Also, the UK is almost impossible to migrate to now, unless you're an EU citizen.

    1. Re:Sad but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or illegal.

    2. Re:Sad but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain is still a lovely, free country

      Free country my ass. CCTV on every fucking streetcorner in every fucking town with more than 10 people. Government snooping that makes the NSA look like a sorority chick getting ass-banged by a senior. Oh wait, you can't even watch that in that shithole anymore. Hell no, I've been there, spent a shitload of my holiday cash there but I will never, ever fucking never ever return as long as nobody puts a gun to my head.

      It's really sad, because all British folks that I know personally are very nice folks. It's the government that sucks camel dicks.

    3. Re:Sad but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the CCTV doesn't work, most are nothing to do with the govt and none are connected to any databases.

      No, MI5 does not have access to the servers of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple etc etc. They have a budget that is 1/100th the size of the NSA's. Yes, you can watch whatever porn you can find -- there is talk of having to opt-in to porn on the major ISPs but probably won't happen.

      We are on the precipice of a police state as I said. But cannabis is pretty much decriminalised here, even the right wing party pushed gay marriage.

      Yes the govt sucks camel dicks. It's because we have the same camel dick-sucking electoral system the US has: plurality.

  75. Explanation for not telling customers? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    It is probably too late. The demand has already been issued.

    He cannot destroy anything, it has already been demanded by the feds and destroying it after it is requested will land him in jail.

    I'd like to hear more opinions on this.

    It seems Lavabit didn't even email their own customers to tell them they shut down. This would be an astonishingly bad bit of customer service -- unless of course it was protecting a customer (let's call him Edward).

    Is it possible that the FISA warrant was issued against the company and not the owners, and so the only legal way to get out of it was to dissolve the company and destroy the servers?

    Good post btw.

  76. $25 for six months email, and US-based, no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing stopping the Government from knocking on your door in Worcester Massachusetts and demanding you let them spy on email users. That's the whole reason Lavabit went down, refusing to do that.

  77. The real reason is H-Bombs (+obilg Trek quote) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All oaths to defend the Constitution went out the window on March 1,1954 when the first H-bomb was detonated.
    "Survival cancels out programming!"
    Pretending to believe that nothing trumps the Constitution is like trying to ignore a missing wheel on your car.
    Insisting that all government national security issues can be elevated to a level that trumps the Constitution is the real argument in this debate.

  78. might makes right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    might makes right.

    congress will do what it's forced to do, by

    NSA/lobbyists/bankers/corporations

    or

    citizens

    money / power vs. citizens

    its' upto everyone to do their best according to their intelligence. therefore, there is no need to worry. except do your best according to your intelligence. american history proves the power of standing up for your rights. there IS hope if people are awake. the question is are they?

  79. Secret courts now against US citizens too.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is worse than it looks..

    First the secret courts were there to 'get terrorists'.
    1)Snowdon hasn't threatened to blow up or destroy anything.
    2)Snowdon is an American citizen

    They are now using 'secret' courts, 'secret' letters and 'secret spying' to try to catch him / his associates..

    America is no longer 'behaving like' a secret police state..

    it has now become one, in all bona-fide aspects of the term..

    Shame on Bush, Obama, and all others involved in this..

    Somebody set up a mass demo in Washington (the 10 million American March?) please..I and my friends would go..

  80. Others also bit the dust. Silent Circle closes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silent Circle offered phone, video, and text services (Silent Phone and Silent Text) to be completely end-to-end secure with all cryptography done on the clients and their exposure to our data to be nil.

    They just wrote in their blog that also closes following Lavabit's shut down to not “be complicit in crimes against the American people.”

  81. Oops, Obama did it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more pathetic than a modern day diva wreck, our president: Barrack Obama.

  82. Payback time by YAEuropean · · Score: 1

    Dear mr. Lavabit, I do not know you, I didn't use your services but as an European (Dutch) citizen I feel obligated to contribute to your legal defense fund. Your grandfathers died on Omaha beach, Dunkirk etc. fighting for our freedom. That same freedom you are loosing very very rapidly. So I have no choice but to do some payback. Hang in there, in the end the good guys always win...

  83. Who can you trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the ZDNet article on this fiasco:
    "In a closing note, Levison offered a warning about anyone doing business with U.S. tech companies:
    This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."

    Amen.

  84. We did this to ourselves. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    We did it by using gmail instead of using end to end encryption, which in retrospect was absolutely insane.

    We did it by voting partisan, by falling for the whole, partisan politics, fake, "lesser of two evils" scam.

    We did it by sitting back as the use of security tools to do our jobs became, in the eyes of our government, impetus to surreptitiously monitor us, and became criminalized.

    We did it by continuing to patronize companies that cave to unconstitutionally and illegally yield to secret warrants.

    And now we're too far into it to do much about it, but try and calmly make excuses for what's happened, least we come off as some sort of whackjob conspiracy theorists.

    We did it to ourselves by valuing money, our careers, our own personal security, over our freedom, over our privacy. We've gone to great lengths to redefine what freedom and privacy in the Electronic Age IS. Because, you know, things are so much better now because of the tech we love so much.

    We are living in very interesting times, indeed.

  85. Re:Not Obama's fault? No longer innocent! by lpq · · Score: 1

    Initially yes, but not only did he NOT stop the policies when he got in office, but when they came up for renewal, and all he had to do was NOT sign, and they wouldn't pass, he took the affirmative step of signing for a continuation of the Bush-regime.

  86. Why operate from USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't he just move operations to Switzerland or any other european country except UK?

  87. inquiring minds want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just leave an account of what happened to you in a briefcase in a bus station or rail terminal and someone will let us know what went down.

  88. "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    RTFA you posted.

    The article-reading blasphemers will lure you in with a plausible argument, and then slope all slippery, they'll have you linking the story before you can post. Gasp!

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway