Slashdot Mirror


Lavabit Case Unsealed: FBI Demands Companies Secretly Turn Over Crypto Keys

jest3r writes "Lavabit won a victory in court and were able to get the secret court order [which led to the site's closure] unsealed. The ACLU's Chris Soghoian called it the nuclear option: The court order revealed the FBI demanded Lavabit turn over their root SSL certificate, something that would allow them to monitor the traffic of every user of the service. Lavabit offered an alternative method to tap into the single user in question but the FBI wasn't interested. Lavabit could either comply or shut down. As such, no U.S. company that relies on SSL encryption can be trusted with sensitive data. Everything from Google to Facebook to Skype to your bank account is only encrypted by SSL keys, and if the FBI can force Lavabit to hand over their SSL key or face shutdown, they can do it to anyone."

54 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. https by jobsagoodun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Luckily I browse my favourite sites like /. using http so I'm not affected by this.

    1. Re:https by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your favorite site also bans random TOR exit nodes from browsing it. I can understand banning posting to prevent spam and such, but browsing ? That's just moronic. It also craps when the IP of the user changes during editing/posting.

      Slashdot, please get on with the times, you are probably the legal site most visited by TOR users. You need to add HTTPS and improve TOR support.

    2. Re:https by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure the beta will fix this.

      It's one of the areas they're working on.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:https by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait for your turn!

      They are still trying to figure out these non-ASCII char sets.

    4. Re:https by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because I'd prefer my employer not to know my /. UID?

      Never ask "why do you want privacy"; that's always a stupid question. Privacy is simply an integral part of the two prime human goals: liberty and dignity.

      This is a fundamental mindset change that's needed in developers! We've learned to write software that uses the least possible privilege, as the core of security. We need to learn to write software that offers the most possible privacy, as the core of human rights.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Nothing left to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Understandable that he shut down.
    The USA is ruled by evil bastards that have no respect for the citizens.
    Time to revolt is now.

    1. Re:Nothing left to do by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      You already ARE revolting!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Nothing left to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the worst haiku I've ever read.

    3. Re:Nothing left to do by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      *facepalm* on my part.

      *facepalm* on your face like everyone else. Dirty boy.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Nothing left to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean the time is now for others to revolt while you sit in the basement playing armchair general. Who about you actually di something rather than just make empty threats?

      Surely you're not suggesting that this AC is some sort of...coward...are you?

    5. Re:Nothing left to do by NewWorldDan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And if you get one of these national security letters or other absurd warrant from the feds, publish it. The right of the press to publish otherwise classified material was affirmed in the 1971 case New York Times Co. v. United States, although that was a pretty weak ruling. But unless you've agreed to keep something secret, you're theoretically free to do with it as you like. Also, I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take your legal advice from the internet.

  3. Why? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see why they would want the SSL key, when presumably they have easy access to the data on the servers under the laughable "due process" already in place. Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Why? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't see why they would want the SSL key, when presumably they have easy access to the data on the servers under the laughable "due process" already in place. Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?

      Because presumably the whole point of Lavabit is that the stored email was encrypted based on a key that only the user had, so in-transit is the only place they could see it.

    2. Re:Why? by Jose · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would they want to intercept the traffic when they could just read it off the server?

      from TFA: ....But Lavabit offered paying customers a secure email service that stores incoming messages encrypted to a key known only to that user. Lavabit itself did not have access.

      --
      The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, they did not have access to the site (that would have been overly broad and unconstitutional), but lavabit was forced by the court to install a packet dumper. So FBI had the full encrypted streams of all user sessions. FBI then requested the SSL key that would unlock all stored streams. The court reasoned that because the site uses a single SSL key for all users, that's lavabit's fault and agreed that the request is not overly broad.

      Luckily there's a simple technical fix for this: perfect forward secrecy in HTTPS, using RSA DiffieHellman or ECDH key exchange. The encryption key is ephemeral and the SSL private key cannot be used to perform a passive attack on the sniffed. FBI/NSA is forced to perform a MIM on the very sessions they target; if done on the scale of the whole internet, this would be easily detected.

      All HTTPS servers should ship with this cypher suite as the default.

    4. Re:Why? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The best part is they said here that they wanted the "Root Certificate", which would allow them to sign new keys. Caveat: that's just a trust model, allowing them to replace LavaBit's SSL key. What they wanted was LavaBit's site SSL private key.

      Let's say that the NSA got the Verisign Root Certificate and started using it to sign Verisign CSRs. A CSR includes the public key (certificate), but not the private key. The public key is already known. The NSA gains ... nothing.

      Now if they get the Google Gmail SSL private key, they can decrypt the SSL session handshake and key exchange. The key exchange exchanges a symmetric encryption key for AES or RC4 (yes RC4 is secure; yes I know it's used in WEP, which uses a new NONCE for every packet, and in their implementation they generate insecure NONCE/IV pairs and you can collect millions of these and crack it. Not applicable here). With Gmail's SSL private key, the NSA can decrypt the symmetric session key exchange and use that key to decrypt your session and read your e-mail.

      That's the difference.

    5. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you read the article, they demanded the SSL key since Lavabit did not comply with the earlier order. All the Feds originally wanted was metadata for one user. Lavabit could have provided that, but refused. The prosecutors asked they be held in contempt of court, and then asked for the SSL keys. This is on Lavabit.

      Yes, how dare the impudent bastards attempt to protect their customers from illegal surveillance!

      Seriously, I think you just posited a digital variant of the 'skinny jeans defense' rapists use.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I read the court documents and it appears the sequence of events went something like:

      1. FBI asked for real time details of (Snowden? Everyone thinks Snowden, the request was one day after it was revealed he has an account with Lavabit) an account, specifically metadata relating to email exchanges.

      2. Lavabit didn't respond.

      3. FBI got pissed, involved courts

      4. Lavabit made an offer to provide the information on a monthly basis, rather than a realtime basis, and asked for payment of $3,500 ($2,000 for labor and I can't remember what the other $1,500 was.)

      5. FBI threw a fit, announced that instead they were now asking for a box to be installed to intercept communications. The box would be programmed to only transmit the required information about person-we-think-is-Snowden, but because of the way it's designed would require Lavabit's SSL keys.

      5. Lavabit: Nu-uh.

      6. Courts: Uh yeah, we're siding with the FBI on this one.

      7. "But I don't trust the government to only intercept $PROBABLY_SNOWDEN's records. Also I want to talk about this case, first amendment and whatnot."

      8. Courts: "Well the government doesn't trust you, has good reason not to trust you based on your history of non-cooperation, and I don't care whether you trust it, established precedent says you have to cooperate. Also I'm not going to let you tell anyone about anything so there."

      At this point the courts started threatening fines. Lavabit gave up its key but in a way designed to piss off the FBI, which, of course, pissed off the court too. Court started imposing fines. Lavabit shut itself down.

      My reading:

      1. Lavabit wasn't as principled as claimed by Glenn Greenwald et al. They did actually plan (or told the courts and the FBI they would anyway) to release the records relating to $PROBABLY_SNOWDEN to the FBI. At best you can argue they were lying, but how's that showing integrity?

      2. Lavabit made a number of elementary legal mistakes from the beginning, even avoiding using a lawyer in the first hearing. These mistakes made it easy for the FBI to argue that they couldn't trust Lavabit to do what Lavabit was offering to do. Lavabit should have contacted the FBI immediately, made it clear their concerns, and not made a clearly bad-faith offer to provide something useless to the FBI - I don't mean they should have offered something useful, they should have said instead "Look, this is a major problem for us, we have to investigate further and determine something that can satisfy the law and your requirements that does not damage the integrity of our system", and had a lawyer work with the courts on this.
      3. Notwithstanding the above, the court's refusal to allow Lavabit to talk to politicians et al about the basic principles in the case seems absurd and completely unconstitutional. Given the circumstances, I have to assume that Snowden was the target - if $RANDOM_DRUGDEALER was the target, Lavabit going to a politician and saying "We've been told to hand over records of one of our 50,000 users" wouldn't tip anyone off.

      This is a total fuck-up. The EFF and ACLU can get involved now, but so many mistakes were made early on it's going to be an uphill fight for everything except the free speech issue. In particular, if you're expecting this to end up with a judgement that it was wrong to demand access to Lavabit's data, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Why? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lavabit wasn't as principled as claimed by Glenn Greenwald et al. They did actually plan (or told the courts and the FBI they would anyway) to release the records relating to $PROBABLY_SNOWDEN to the FBI. At best you can argue they were lying, but how's that showing integrity?

      Once they were given a proper warrant, complying is the principled thing to do. That's proper due process. The point is to prevent the government from gaining access to information while skipping said due process. So no, at best I can argue they were telling the truth, and doing the right thing.

      Lavabit made a number of elementary legal mistakes from the beginning, even avoiding using a lawyer in the first hearing. These mistakes made it easy for the FBI to argue that they couldn't trust Lavabit to do what Lavabit was offering to do. Lavabit should have contacted the FBI immediately, made it clear their concerns

      Assuming the facts are correct, agreed.

      and not made a clearly bad-faith offer to provide something useless to the FBI

      I don't think that's what they did. The first offer of providing the information on a monthly basis seems both useful and better targeted than the initial FBI request. Why is this a bad-faith offer?

      Notwithstanding the above, the court's refusal to allow Lavabit to talk to politicians et al about the basic principles in the case seems absurd and completely unconstitutional.

      Right. The whole thing was the government throwing a fit. "Oh, you want to fight us. We'll up the ante, and ask for something completely unreasonable then.." It was very principled on their part to not fold as a result, and to shut down instead of giving them what they wanted.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lavabit could have provided that, but refused.

      Good on them!

      This is on Lavabit.

      And for that, they are to be viewed as heroes.

      As opposed to Fed apologists, such as yourself.

    9. Re:Why? by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lavabit being "in contempt" regarding the first request in no way justifies the second.

      This is just more of this sort of post-factum argumentation that is so common everywhere lately. You even see it at the level of the SCOTUS. Some goal is declared supremely important and then the law is distorted to fit that objective rather than to actually honestly examine if that objective is even legal to begin with.

      "We must do X, therefore we will ignore the law"

      Same nonsense, different day.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if the US gov asked a huge mega-corp to break its whole business model and trust, essentially going out of business (think big auto makers or sony or some huge corp like that) do you think it would happen? would the gov push around a huge company and try to ruin them, just to get some (cough) meta-data?

      small guys who can be made to look 'dodgy': yes

      big co's who donate to the election campains: certainly not!

      "business as usual" ;( might makes right. time and time again, the larger the government gets, the more power it gets and the more corrupt it gets until its main goal is just to keep itself going along the same trajectory. ethics and fair treatment be damned.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Why? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.

      If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?

      Well, OK, maybe not you, specifically, but a person of reasonable faculties who has not already proven themselves to be an ardent licker of federal boot.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Why? by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lavabit made a number of elementary legal mistakes from the beginning, even avoiding using a lawyer in the first hearing.

      You shouldn't have to use a lawyer to get justice in a free nation. It shouldn't be possible to use a defendant's naivete as a procedural trap to extort concessions and violate due process. Judges are supposed to be biased in favor of defendants to ensure this doesn't happen. The puppet FISA "judges" are so quick to lick the boots of their real master that they can't be bothered to maintain a believable charade.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    13. Re:Why? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The summary is wrong.

      The FBI originally wanted access to just Snowden's account and Lavabit refused. In order to get it, they demanded SSL keys to feed into their snoop machine so they could filter out just Snowden's info.

      At that point, Lavabit AGREED to provide a tap on just Snowden. The FBI basically said "too late, we don't trust you to do it properly".

      Not that they should get what they tried to -- the SSL private keys -- but the summary makes it out to be something different than what happened.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    14. Re:Why? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 1979 the SCOTUS ruled that pen registers didn't require warrants.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register#Background

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  4. Your move, NSA by Max_W · · Score: 5, Funny
  5. What moron judge allowed this? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this legal? How do you get a warrant that broad? Are fishing expeditions now allowed by law enforcement?

    1. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by loganljb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Things are a bit more involved than they seem from reading just the summary. The fed originally requested that LavaBit provide them with information regarding a single account (header information only, but on an ongoing basis), which they are allowed to obtain without probable cause. LavaBit refused the initial request, then stalled when given a court order to provide this information (I believe LavaBit was in the right in doing so -- I'm NOT supporting the fed's case, just providing information). The fed took LavaBit back to court, and obtained a court order requiring that LavaBit provide the SSL key, as the fed did not believe that LavaBit would comply with an order for information on a single account. The best part was when LavaBit sent them the SSL key, as a 4 point font printout :-)

      In other words, when LavaBit wouldn't provide them information on a single account, the fed escalated to the nuclear option.

    2. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop right there. The fact that they are allowed this without probable cause is already too much.

      They should have sent it 4 point one character per page.

      The fact that the judge believed the FBI would only take the info the warrant allowed makes him either an accomplice or as naive as a child.

    3. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let's be clear, the single account was Edward Snowden's - and Lavabit's resistance was not futile, the so called nuclear option has backfired on the fed in terms of public sentiment.

    4. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by loganljb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like I said, I don't disagree with how LavaBit handled this. In fact, I think EVERYONE should treat federal 'requests' for information the way that Ladar Levinson has, and greatly admire the stand he has taken. I was simply saying that it was more complicated than the summary made it out to be.

      That being said, in my personal opinion the fact that the fed can request envelope information with no probably cause is a travesty. I see it as no different than pulling mail out of my mailbox to see who I write letters to and who writes to me. This should be illegal search and seizure

    5. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The header information blanket traces back to an idiotic ruling that the outside of a letter was not protected since everybody can and had to read it to get it there (the USPS digitizes and stores all of them now). The FBI then applied this to encrypted traffic which makes no sense since it's no longer data that anybody but them or there agent can read.

      We need clear guidance, which a simple presidential order could give that prohibits all of these sorts of searches.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I doubt many in the public will support them when the fact emerge that they were defying court orders.

      Yeah, how dare they challenge authority! It's unamerican!

    7. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by towermac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I got no mod points, but this is absolutely the takeaway.

      The US depends on it's software industry; we shipped all our labor jobs overseas to trade them for office work (programming). That, and Hollywood, is why we're so mean to other countries over IP.

      And now the US government has completely undermined them. It's probably a good time to be a programmer in Brazil and Germany. I wonder If our software industry will be able to recover from this.

    8. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...when the fact emerge that they were defying [Secret, Unaccountable, Undemocratic] court orders.

      Cold Fjords subservient cheerleading to power never ceases to entertain. Obviously the operators of the Cold Fjord account have learned absolutely nothing from history, or are on the wrong side. See: "Means Used by the Nazi Conspirators in Gaining Control of the German State". Quote: "To make certain that cases with political ramifications would be dealt with acceptably and in conformity with Party principles, the Nazis granted designated areas of criminal jurisdiction to the so-called Special Courts (Sondergerhte)."

    9. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by david672orford · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop right there. The fact that they are allowed this without probable cause is already too much.

      It is interesting that the prosecutor portrayed this as a pen trap. Courts have ruled that users do not have a reasonable expectation that the numbers they dial on their phone line will remain private (basicaly because they show up on the bill) but that they do have a reasonable expectation that nobody is listening in. That is why this information can be obtained without probable cause. But if Lavabit offered specific guarantees that this information would not be recorded except in the encryted e-mail boxes, then the users had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This might make the use of a pen trap without probable cause illegal.

    10. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More likely it is:

      FBI: The precedents handed down allow us to demand this.
      Judge: That sucks... unfortunately you are right.
      FBI: Tell them to hand over the goods or we'll appeal and you'll get slapped down and you'll still have to do it.
      Judge: Fine, assholes.
      Lavabit: We're going to comply in the least cooperative way.
      Judge: Don't fuck with me, I'm already in a bad mood from Special Agent Dickface over there.
      Lavabit: Nyaahhh
      Judge: Okay, fine. Which is to say, pay a fine, now.

    11. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should have sent it 4 point one character per page.

      No. You should have a good reason for telling them "no", then you should tell them "no" with your reason, and get lawyers involved. Pretending to technically comply with a court order while making an obviously obstructive, bad-faith effort is a good way to ensure that things go rapidly downhill for you.

    12. Re:What moron judge allowed this? by CowTipperGore · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FISA courts were created by Congress, the same as any other Federal court besides the Supreme Court. The FISA court is accountable to both its appeal court and the Supreme Court like other Federal Courts, and the Judges can be removed by Congress as can other Judges. In fact, the Judges on the FISA court are ordinary Federal judges that rotate through the FISA court from other Federal courts.

      The FISA Court is accountable to no one. The FISA Court meets in secret and only one side is represented, so there is no possibility of appeal for those whose rights are trampled. The FISA Court has denied only 11 of 33,942 requests in its 33 years of operation and the FISA Court of Review has met a total of twice in that time period. The design and operation of the FISA Court provides no path for accountability to the Supreme Court. Even if the telecom companies that were required to provide customer data to the government wanted to appeal, there is no requirement that their arguments are considered (the FISA Court allowed Yahoo! to appeal in 2008 so that the law in question could be ruled okay and a heavily redacted ruling released to make sure no one else bothers to try). No FISA-related case has ever gone to the Supreme Court and it isn't clear how one could.

      Congress has no oversight of the judges. Each judge is appointed by the Supreme Court Chief Justice with no oversight or confirmation by anyone else, including Congress. In the 33 years of FISA, we've had three chief justices, all conservative Republicans. John Roberts appointed every single FISA Court judge currently serving.

      Your dishonesty regarding FISA is troubling. Either you are ignorant of something you strongly support or you are lying in hopes of deceiving others.

  6. That doesn't follow by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

    if the FBI can force Lavabit to hand over their SSL key or face shutdown, they can do it to anyone.

    I don't think so. There's a big difference between the legal firepower available to a small service provider like Lavabit and someone like Yahoo or Google -- and handing over the ability to read everything is definitely not something that a simple warrant can legally require. Nor even an NSL.

    In fairness, in this case the FBI's original request did ask for just specific metadata about one user. I haven't read it closely enough to understand how the scope was broadened so dramatically, except that I understand that Lavabit refused to comply early on, and then eventually the FBI decided that they didn't trust Lavabit to comply correctly due to Lavabit's obstructionism, and so decided that they just wanted to be able to read all the traffic and extract the bits they needed themselves.

    Lavabit, of course, decided to shut down instead. That way there would be no traffic to read.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:That doesn't follow by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all fairness their first request was horseshit. The idea that the metadata of email even encrypted email is not protected is already so outlandish as to be nearly unbelievable. We now know we live in a police state.

      This judge is either willingly part of this bullshit or the most naive SOB that ever lived when he believed the FBI would only take the information the warrant allowed. If you give them the ability to get more they will take more.

    2. Re:That doesn't follow by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm in a police state Lavabit would have never existed in the first place.

      We are in one of those times where the US government is over-reaching their powers under the Constitution. It isn't the first time.

      Time to wake up folks. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

  7. Should the US still be in charge of the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Go ahead, mod me troll. But given the recent revelations, how can we claim to be any better than even the fucking UN at this point? I've made a complete u-turn on this issue, and it scares the crap out of me that I would have continued to defend the US as the savior and guardian of the open and free internet if it wasn't for a single guy leaking some stuff. And we can't even push something as simple as net-neutrality regulations through without it becoming a horrible political mess.

    Fuck this government and its institutions and fuck the people that support it.

  8. Contribute by kajsocc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lavabit is still in court over this. You can contribute to their legal defense fund here.

    1. Re:Contribute by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm blowing seven mod points I've already handed out on this story doing this, but meh, who cares. Pointing out someone has no idea what they're talking about is worth it. Sending the most lawyers has nothing to do with legal precedence. Lawyers can't influence legal precedence any more than any other person in the country. I'm not sure why you even care about legal precedence - it's not usually a very controversial subject. It's just how things are.

      A court has precedence because courts are set up in a hierarchy by the legislature.

      Some types of law have precedence over others, for instance the constitution over statute and statute over regulation.

      Of course, they may want to send lawyers because of things called legal precedents. It's something different. Go look it up.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  9. update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    UPDATE 7:00pm CT: In a press release published on his Facebook page, Levison confirmed the unsealing and laid out his defense.

    “People using my service trusted me to safeguard their online identities and protect their information. I simply could not betray that trust," he said. "If the Obama administration feels compelled to continue violating the privacy rights of the masses just so they can conduct surveillance on the few then he should at least ask Congress for laws providing that authority instead of using the courts to force businesses into secretly becoming complicit in crimes against the American people. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/lavabit-defied-order-for-snowdens-login-info-then-govt-asked-for-sites-ssl-key/

  10. They wanted a man-in-the-middle box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firstly they wanted *all* meta data on every Lavabit user, not just Snowden. It was a blanket demand to get all of the data.
    They also wanted man-in-the-middle box. A device which would have the root certificate under control of the government and would sit in Lavabits network able to man-in-the-middle attack emails (i.e. speech) of Lavabit users not connected to Snowden.

    Lavabit are guardians of the customers data, how can they guard if a black-box is on their network? It can do anything, the judge has no way of telling, Lavabit has no way of telling. Google apparently refused these boxes and with good reason. There is no trust here, the Judge is not supposed to trust the FBI & NSA to do only what it says. He's supposed to be the guardian of the law, just as Lavabit are the guardians of the data.

    An example, if I had such a box, I could spoof email convincingly in a way that would pass forensics. I could create fake evidence. I could spread disinformation (propaganda) again untraceably.

    They also asserted that it filters out only the data they were allowed to have and throws away the rest. We know this has been proven to be false in many many leaks, even the President now pretends the data goes into a 'lockbox'. A lockbox isn't a lockbox if the NSA has the key and no judicial oversight stops them turning that key at will.

    It seems, once again, the judicial branch has simply become a fawning sidekick to the executive branch.

  11. Certificate Authorities compromised? by kaalon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we assume that all the major Certificate Authorities have been "compromised" by the FBI / NSA as well.

  12. Read-only vs. complete ban by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is a user who just reads considered "abusive" to Slashdot? Treat Tor like any other open proxy, giving it read-only access.

  13. Re:The USA is ruled by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the US gets the press, but every country is doing as much as they can (and are able to) with the money and network taps they have in place.

    this is human nature. the dark side of human nature.

    at least its out in the open, now. what we do with it, as a species, is up to us. do we put our data thieves (ie, the government) behind bars or do we just say 'I have nothing to hide!' and let them continue along with their abuse and theft of our privacy?

    there is no country that won't do this, no matter what they say. so stop thinking its the big bad old USA. its everyone, everywhere, who CAN do it. companies includes (your corp firewall and your corp provided laptop probably has built-in certs from the company)

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  14. Re:The USA is ruled by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there is no country that won't do this, no matter what they say. so stop thinking its the big bad old USA. its everyone, everywhere, who CAN do it.

    Qualitatively, yes you're probably right. Quantitatively, not so much. It's like the military. Every country, or almost, has one. But only the USofA spends about as much on "defense" as the rest of the planet put together.

    PS Capitals, used with some restraint, go a long way to making heads and tails out of a sentence.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  15. basically by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Basically, the government can force you to do anything it wants, and there's nothing you can do about it. Strange, I remember hearing about some document that spelled out certain limitations on the governments powers, and certain rights that people had, but I must have misremembered.

  16. Re:The USA is ruled by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the US gets the press, but every country is doing as much as they can (and are able to) with the money and network taps they have in place.

    I live in Ireland. I can pretty much guarantee you of three things.

    1) The state lacks the expertise to snoop on any communications.
    2) The state lacks the legal clout to force anyone to turn over their encryption keys.
    3) The government would likely not survive the closure of an IT SME such as Lavabit -- and loss of associated jobs -- which resulted from direct government interference in that company's ability to operate in Ireland.

    The rules that apply to the US government do not apply to every government. Some governments lack the skills, laws, and nerve to pull off what the White House/NSA is doing to US internet companies right now. More governments simply lack the money to pay for so extensive a network of surveillance and control.

    there is no country that won't do this, no matter what they say. so stop thinking its the big bad old USA. its everyone, everywhere, who CAN do it.

    That can includes more than simply being ABLE to do it. It includes being EMPOWERED to do it, being PERMITTED by the people to do it, and to being able to AFFORD to do it. Right now the US government is able, empowered, but only just about permitted and certainly not able to afford to continue to finance a spying program of this magnitude.

    The Soviet Union exhausted both its finances and legitimacy in trying to keep its populace under control. Hopefully the US will not have to go through as painful a breakup in order to reverse its present trend.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!