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."

165 of 771 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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/
  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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".'
    5. 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.
    6. 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.)

    7. 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"

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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

    14. 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.

    15. 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?"

    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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.

    19. 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

    20. 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."
    21. 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."
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Re:Great country you have over there by RoboJ1M · · Score: 2

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

    26. 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...
    27. 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...
    28. 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.

    29. 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.

  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 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
  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 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!”
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

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

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

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

  5. 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 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. Re:Context by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So yeah, basically you just tried to justify homophobia with racism.

    12. 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?

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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 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"?
    2. 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.

    3. 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"?
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  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 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!
    3. 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!”
    4. 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!”
    5. 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

    6. 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?

  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!”
  13. 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".

  14. 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 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?

  15. 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 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!
    2. 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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...
  16. 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 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)
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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 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!
    4. 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!
    5. 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!
    6. 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.

    7. 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
  20. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by jerpyro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think we all lost the 2012 elections.

  21. 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 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.

  22. 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!
  23. 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.

  24. 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).

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.
  28. 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?

  29. 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
  30. 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!”
  31. 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).

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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
  36. 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?

  37. 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.
  38. 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?
  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. Apropo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
  43. 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?

  44. Re: IF ONLY ... !! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we all lost the last four Presidential elections.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.

  49. 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 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...

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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/
  55. 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/
  56. 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.

  57. 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 !
  58. 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.

  59. 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!)

  60. Re:IF ONLY ... !! by rmdashrf · · Score: 2

    Republicans vs Democrats

    Who ever wins, we lose.

    --
    Nihil in publicum sputa.