Slashdot Mirror
Lavabit.com Owner: 'I Could Be Arrested' For Resisting Surveillance Order
Zak3056 writes "NBC News is reporting that 'The owner of an encrypted email service used by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden said he has been threatened with criminal charges for refusing to comply with a secret surveillance order to turn over information about his customers. "I could be arrested for this action," Ladar Levison told NBC News about his decision to shut down his company, Lavabit LLC, in protest over a secret court order he had received from a federal court that is overseeing the investigation into Snowden.''"
Is it a legitimate Court Order? You presume something that is not assured to be in evidence. I strongly sugeest that you read the Fourth Amendment before any further remarks- just because the Government is doing something doesn't make it legal.
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."
But Then It Was Too Late
The word 'legal' has become entirely frivolous. The government can do what it wants, and no goddamn piece of paper is ever going to stop it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Who is, then, in power of the United States if clearly not the legislative branch?
The business branch. The Department of State works for the arms merchants, and the Commerce Department for the Wall Street commodities markets.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What a difference a mere few decades makes. This is exactly the type of thing that America historically mocked, derided and demonized the USSR and other "commie" or "evil" nations for doing. America is quite clearly demonstrating that their intentions are no less disingenuous.
The problem is not communism, not capitalism nor any other -ism. The problem is that the powerful will never satiate their craving for more power. Power absolutely despises being proven wrong and it will continue its scourge at all costs to cover up and misdirect conceptions.
This is what evil does when it's backed into a corner.
FTFA, he has raised $90,000 in the past few days. That seems to have helped. He has brought attention to legal conflicts that people should be talking about - that will help in a broader sense. It seems like you have given up any notion of progress. It's people who stand up and put things to the test who make a difference - no matter how big or small. If he goes to the joint over it, that's his choice. This media attention IMHO will be of benefit that could have the feds go easier on him because he's not just some unknown guy getting black bagged in an alley and stuffed into a room with no windows - blah, blah, blah.
Because a real court order, You can fight. You can enlist help, a professional lawyer or even contact others in the same situation and try to fight it together, not alone -- divide et impera rings any bells? You can inform the public about the proceedings and the scope of the court order, the information required by the law, or rather what data was leaked to the secret services. A non-secret court allows for scrutiny, compliance with constitution, law and last and also least, morality. You can check it for corruption. An open court is less likely to be taking sides. And so on and so on, You know, things that a rising dictature is not really keen on.
Unfortunately the legislative branch has systematically reduced the effectiveness of the judicial branch. I am talking tort reform. I am talking about threatening activist judges. I am talking about secret court order and secret courts. Without an equal court system democracy just does not work and things like this happen. Manning and Snoden and all these leaks are due to the lack of due process. If Manning had not been isolated and tortured, it would not nearly be the black eye on the US, and Snoden likely would not be in Russia.
The courts provide an alternative to extreme and violent acts. Let's say that a child that is killed by a defective Ikea bed. The parents can go to court, have the company be publicly held responsible for the death, and, outside of tort reform, receive a judgement that will encourage the company to do better in the future. Or the parents could just go to location where they bought the bed and justifiably kill the person who sold them the bed, or go to corporate and justifiably kill the executives who profited from the bed, etc. Which one actually leads to a safer world?
So really the problem is that some powerful people are upset because the courts do not allow them to sufficiently oppress the people or murder customers, so the want to reduce our government to the two branches that can effectively be bribed to engage in unnecessary and illegal activities, like spying on US citizens, which invariable requires massive purchases of inflated sales and products which invariably increases the profits of those companies. A classic example in the war in Iraq, which was facilitated by the purchase of an election by those who wanted Dick Cheney in the executive, and the subsequent transfer of taxpayer treasure directly to those who bought him.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black