Slashdot Mirror


Gov't Accidentally Publishes Target of Lavabit Probe: It's Snowden (arstechnica.com)

AmiMoJo writes: In the summer of 2013, secure e-mail service Lavabit was ordered by a federal judge to provide real-time e-mail monitoring of one of its users. Rather than comply with the order, Levison shut down his entire company. He said what the government was seeking would have endangered the privacy of all of his 410,000 users. Now, what was widely assumed has been confirmed. In documents posted to the federal PACER database this month, the government accidentally left his e-mail, 'Ed_snowden@lavabit.com,' unredacted for all to see.

162 comments

  1. Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple and these guys telling the government to fuck themselves.

    The US electorate going apeshit.

    It's like we're in a cold revolution!

    1. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like we're in a cold revolution!

      Really cold - Most people have no clue about the implications of these issues (if they even know about them).

      A majority of people, for example, think Apple should roll over for the FBI "just this once" because terrorism, and they see the entire tech world rallying behind Apple (a near frickin' miracle to those of us in the trenches) as nothing but a bunch of damned elitist geeks trying to circle the wagons.

    2. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Underrated

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You just made that up. How do you know a majority of people think that? And then you take it a step further and suggest that you know how they see it with a very particular scene set. Even supposing the former proposition was true and there was evidence to support that (e.g. polls that ask the same basic question in different ways, etc.), that does not grant the latter.

      It's a significant leap from no information at all to that vision you paint. I want you to substantiate it.

    4. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by pla · · Score: 1

      I respond on these topics just to point out that not even everyone with the tech community agrees with this SJW element.

      I too like poking fun at SJWs at every opportunity, but seriously, what? Did you reply to the wrong comment?

    5. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People do not care as long as you make their cage comfortable enough.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      A majority of people don't even know about the Apple vs FBI issue and therefore have no opinion one way or the other.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      Which poll determines that most americans think that Apple should, and I fucking quote you, roll over for the FBI "just this once" because terrorism

      Amazing that you took the extra step to be very specific, and even took the extra step and pretended that the links you provided say what you claimed they would say, now its time to go through the extra step of shutting the fuck up and let the people that dont just make things up like a spoiled cunt talk.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A majority of people, for example, think Apple should roll over for the FBI "just this once" because terrorism . . .

      And they want Trump for POTUS, too. No wonder nobody ever accused them of being intelligent.

    9. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No, I think most people think that Apple and every other company should comply with court orders. Because that has been part of the law since the founding of the country and we have seen no good reason to change this yet. I guess if you are an ultra capitalist you might want companies to be above the law, but most people would not agree with you.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    10. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      A majority of people, for example, think Apple should roll over for the FBI "just this once" because terrorism . . .

      And they want Trump for POTUS, too. No wonder nobody ever accused them of being intelligent.

      Considering the other choices available, you can't really claim they're all that dumb, either.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    11. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Even at +5, agreed.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    12. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Wait for it! When you realize that we are the ones making our own cages, then you'll realize who the "they" are.

      I have met the enemy, and they are us.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And they want Trump or Hillary for POTUS, too.

      FTFY

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, shill.

    15. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      You can fuck off, too... fucking shill.

    16. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the phone is owned by the city of San Bernardino, and the FBI is asking on their behalf, what is the problem here?

      When you go to Apple and ask for tech support, do you often expect them to put you through long drawn out legal proceedings because they don't think you should be given access to your own data?

      This is how the issue sounds to laypeople. The FBI has painted it as apple refusing to do something trivial, but that's not accurate.

      The issue of coarse is that Apple can't actually unlock the phone. The security is good enough that there is nothing they can do to bypass the the lock that won't risk erasing the data, and cloning the data to another device will render it unreadable.

      The FBI has therefore escalated their demands to forcing apple to create a hacking tool to be used by the DoJ on the phone. Said tool doesn't exist; Apple would have to create it and it would have to be Apple as there are mesures to ensure that third party software can't do this for obvious security reasons. It would also mean the security measures in all phones of the same model are rendered vulnerable to anyone with that tool.

      Apple's opinion is that the existence of such a tool would harm their customers and thus creating it would be unethical and likely harm their business, and they do not want to create it. The FBI is insisting they have the right to compel them to do so.

      Thus the actual issue here is: Can the FBI compel you to perform arbitrary labor on their behalf?

    17. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Durr, I'm not voting for the same person as you. I must not be intelligent, durr.

    18. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't claiming to be above the law. It's claiming the FBI's interpretation of the existing law is invalid. Ultimately, after all appeals have been exhausted, Apple will comply with the final ruling. Until then, let them argue their points.

      That said, I would still love for the judge to send the CEO of a highly rated - and powerful - corporation to jail and NOT stay the order pending appeal. Granted, the appeals court could stay the order. My point is that the courts need to show they have the courage to actually send even the most powerful people to jail.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    19. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I am a shill for clearly stating the issue? Please provide references about how I was inaccurate.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      "Hi Apple my Apple care number is 12....."
      "Okay how can we help you"

      "Well the instructions to access my data and reset my device password via iCloud did not work"

      "Really our logs show the password was changed."

      "Well okay they worked but I did not follow them."

      "Oh, so how can we help you"

      "Well I need to you decrypt my device"

      "I am sorry sir we can't do that we haven't got the cipher keys ourselves"

      "Okay well I could guess the PIN if you would just alter the device to not protect from brute force"

      "Umm No."

      I am pretty sure its going to go the same way for even the owner making the request. Apple isn't in the business of re-engineering products that are already in the field. Its NOT reasonably the government should be able to make a person or business abandon what they are doing to at any time to provide unlimited assistance to the FBI. They very concept is incompatible with FREEDOM. Apple already helped the government get access to that phone, the government did what government employees usually do and f**ked up. That should be reason enough to support Apple in this, without even getting in to the technical aspects of the issue.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    21. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      We are all confined to some degree. The earth is a cage from which we cannot escape.

    22. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Apple, isn't a party to the matter is the thing. Apple sold the City a product some time ago. The city, its employee, and the victims are parties. Apple isn't. I don't think anyone ever thought or expect a court could or would order someone to cooperate with an investigation they are this far removed from. Do you really think its right the government should be able to make you stop and help them because someone somewhere happened to use something you built potentially a long time ago in a crime?

      What your broad interpretation is really proposing is that we can all be conscripted into law enforcement on a whim.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    23. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes, phone companies have had to cooperate with criminal investigations since the telegram was invented. Every civilian and every cooperation has always been expected to offer any and all cooperate in the investigation of crimes, even when it can be proven to be against their best interests. Apple should not get a pass just because they are rich and powerful.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    24. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Registered voters...are you sure that there are over 3.6 billion of them?

    25. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I doubt you understand what social justice even means. It means that justice should be defined by the zeitgeist of the "social studies" departments at colleges/universities instead of existing laws and regulations. This issue IS defined by laws and regulations which the government is trying to skirt around.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    26. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just it; you're not clearly stating the issue. You're misstating the issue in a way to slant discussion.

      The issue isn't that Apple has the data and is refusing to hand it over to the FBI (which, if that were the situation, they would have already handed over the data and we wouldn't be having this awful conversation).

      The issue is that Apple doesn't have the data the FBI is hoping to find, and the FBI wants them to destroy the security for *all* iPhones to give them a backdoor so that they can look at whatever data remains on the phone. If they can update this particular iPhone with the "FBIOS" that they're asking for, they could update any iPhone with the same image.

      When you buy a lock, shouldn't you be allowed to have the only key?

    27. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by whit3 · · Score: 1

      No, I think most people think that Apple and every other company should comply with court orders. Because that has been part of the law since the founding of the country ...

      Half-truths described as 'part of the law' - accurate, but quite amusing. Search isn't the only issue, here, there's also command authority over software creation and compulsion of Apple's signature.

      The court may not arbitrarily order any action; the order must be limited, and must not impose undue hardship. And the court should NOT order Apple to damage their customers in the tens of millions, even to the minor extent of abusing their trust. The problem for Apple is one of ethics: the intentional retraction of privacy is a kind of wrongdoing, and while a court order might make it legally defensible, it doesn't make it ethical, nor does it limit the scope of damage to Apple's reputation, credibility, or even safety. If a back door into data ever comes into existence, all persons who guard the door come under attack by any and all prospective data thieves. The story of Lavabit is history we can all learn from.

      Apple has every reason, and right, to pursue this matter. The courts may decide in Apple's favor.

    28. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's time to sign up to the mars colonization..

    29. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep reading on the news about how come cages are not as nice as others and we need Trump to fix all the cages. So yes, people don't care IF they have a nice cage, but it seems that cage quality has become a voting issue...

    30. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by pla · · Score: 1

      Registered voters...are you sure that there are over 3.6 billion of them?

      Given that neither I nor either of those sources claim that - Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?

    31. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by pla · · Score: 1

      Considering that the phone is owned by the city of San Bernardino, and the FBI is asking on their behalf, what is the problem here?

      Okay, if you want to play dumb and treat this like just another routine business transaction, how much would Apple normally charge a large customer to roll out a custom OS version just for them? If San Bernadino (no, not the FBI, who we fund) wants to pay a couple hundred million to unlock "their own" iPhone, I actually don't have a problem with that (but of course, the FBI has zero interest in that outcome, either) - Because that doesn't set a legal precedent for routinely ignoring the 4th and 13th amendments when the government finds it expedient to do so.

      And, of course, as a routine business transaction - Apple should have the right to tell them to fuck right off without Tim Cook risking time in a cage as a result.

    32. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are well-established laws in place that deal with wire-tapping. There is no law in existence, nor any court that could enforce any such non-existent law, that could force anyone to make a product to assist the FBI with an investigation.

      You, sir, are a fucking moron.

    33. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fuck face, maybe you could learn what actual quotes are, and then learn what majority means.

      In other words, I failed to see your argument and think you're the cunt face.

    34. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are doing the same, by changing just the one phone into all iPhones, which isn't the case.

    35. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sir am anonymous. And I am here to tell you the lesser people are afraid. Big DOJ scares them, guilts them into accepting prison, even when innocent of killing lesser people.

      Tonight my friend is when the sheep slaughter is known. If you watch the news, you will see. The people who die are sheep, the leaders of the sheep play with their pawns and eventually. There will be a great uprising of greater people. The sheep will be in cages lesser people will die(natural selection) and greater people will roam the earth, civilised, as they are.

    36. Re: Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can always sue the FBI if the backdoor thing gets in the hands of criminals.

    37. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple and these guys telling the government to fuck themselves.

      Apple is part of PRISM, as Snowden revealed.

    38. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is not ignoring the 4th amendment, the probable cause, thing to be searched, blah blah blah was already given to get a warrant for the device. But, permission was already given by the owner, so the 4th wouldn't even apply in the most restrictive interpretation.

      As far as the 13th, they are not asking Apple to slave away unlocking the phone, they are more than willing to pay for the patch.

      You should get your keyboard checked, all those extraneous boldings make no sense.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. So what? by jandrese · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess it is nice that the government accidentally confirmed the obvious, but it's not much of a news story.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess it is nice that the government accidentally confirmed the obvious, but it's not much of a news story.

      It's obvious to anyone with a brain. Unfortunately there are people that thinks (or claim that they think) that it is just ramblings of conspiracy theorist nutjobs.
      Having a source to point to is always nice.

    2. Re:So what? by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      The real news story is how lavabit was abused in closed court. And they fought back - a bit. Sent the required SSL encryption keys(!) as 4point 11 page document rather than .pem files.

      https://twitter.com/JZdziarski...

      Read all the other bullshit that the government AND the court/judge got away with behind closed doors.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you are being a bit hyperbolic using the word obvious.

      The evidence was reasonable as to draw the conclusion, but it wasn't obvious. And there would always be those who refused to recognize the strong likelihood. However, now, the truth is undeniable.

    4. Re:So what? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point GP was trying to make is that many people are not reasonable and cannot draw conclusions well, so NEED obvious answers.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect example of the government's inability to keep private information from leaking, so don't give them a master key: some day, some how, some one is going to screw up and drop it.

      Best way to foster security -- don't make a master key in the first place

    6. Re:So what? by jimbob6 · · Score: 2

      In a world where we TRULY have a clandestine nebulous paramilitary think tank spying on every American in an attempt to suppress dissent. And a secret out of country military torture prison where we send such undesirables. The whole "conspiracy theorist nut job" argument kind of goes out the window.

    7. Re:So what? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I guess it is nice that the government accidentally confirmed the obvious, but it's not much of a news story.

      This is the point of my comment below....there was a time when a revelation like this would have been major news, all the papers and news stations would have had a field day with it, and heads would have rolled. Now there's barely the merest hint of interest, and not a shred of outrage.

      The public has been thoroughly desensitized to what should be seen as egregious and illegal behavior by the government, yet for most people it's basically a snoozefest

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    8. Re:So what? by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The news story is what happens if The People ever start to care about their most basic rights. Because if they gave a fuck, the obvious followup question to the government is: Why was it necessary to keep the target a secret? Everyone knew about Snowden and assumed it was Snowden. Yet Levison was told he can't tell anyone his system was being attacked or else.

      I want to know why "don't state the obvious" was a legitimate reason to use secret police powers. Go ahead and explain it, government: this is going to be hilarious.

      This new experimental power should be revoked. It didn't work out. The government proved it can't be trusted with the "you don't have 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights whenever we say 'this is an important post-9/11 exception'" power. Seriously: does anyone have any doubts that the question isn't completely settled now?

      Is there still any controversy? Whether you're pro-Snowden or anti-Snowden, now that cat is out of the bag on this case, tell me how things might have gone differently if Snowden had found out that Lavabit was under attack.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:So what? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Anybody who tried to argue that it wasn't Snowden was being willfully obtuse. Even CNN pretty much said it was Snowden.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:So what? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are still people who think the "rape" charge against Julian Assange is completely unrelated to his work with Wikileaks, and that the UK would spend millions for surveillance on any ole' Joe facing questioning in Sweden. People are fucking stupid.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    11. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news story is what happens if The People ever start to care about their most basic rights. Because if they gave a fuck, the obvious followup question to the government is: Why was it necessary to keep the target a secret? Everyone knew about Snowden and assumed it was Snowden. Yet Levison was told he can't tell anyone his system was being attacked or else.

      Umm, just a hunch, but maybe because if Snowden knew the email was being monitored he would stop using it, and the government would lose whatever information they were obviously trying to get?

      I want to know why "don't state the obvious" was a legitimate reason to use secret police powers. Go ahead and explain it, government: this is going to be hilarious.

      Actually, I think your post is the hilarity.

      Whether you're pro-Snowden or anti-Snowden, now that cat is out of the bag on this case, tell me how things might have gone differently if Snowden had found out that Lavabit was under attack.

      For the clueless, please see the first paragraph.

    12. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who was stubborn enough to deny the obvious up to this point will simply point out that the Ed_Snowden@lavabit.com email address could have belonged to anyone and we still don't know for sure. At that point, you'll start banging your head against the wall, and be no further along in the argument than before. There's no point in trying to convince stupid.

    13. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is awesome; they should have done it in a font where each character was differentiable by only a single printer pixel at 1200 dpi [using a high-quality photo printer, of course!].

    14. Re:So what? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      that's not really fighting back. that's just being a douche. fighting back is saying no.

    15. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying "no" involves being jailed for contempt of court, and the FBI getting the keys anyway. They were fucked legally, in many senses of the word.

    16. Re:So what? by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      The right answer is Sorry the keys are stored in tamper resistant hardware modules and can't be extracted or duplicated without the cooperation of 3 of 5 individuals located in different countries.

    17. Re:So what? by rnturn · · Score: 1

      Saying "no" just lands you in jail for contempt of court. Sending an 11 page document in Flyspeck 3 typeface allows you to comply with the court order with a smirk on your face while saying "here's your effin' keys" and remain a free man.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    18. Re:So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      That is because it is independant. If it was a way to get to Assange, why is it easier to go through Sweden and the UK instead of just the UK? The UK spent millions on surveillance because it was a high profile case of a person evading justice and they knew exactly where he was. Do you have evidence of other people pulling shit like this and just being let go, because "oh well they got away"? Do you expect everyone to just drop the rape charges because Assange refuses to present himself to be charged?

      I agree, people are stupid.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    19. Re:So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 0

      Does it hurt to be that paranoid schizophrenic?

      No, there is no think tank spying on everyone, no citizen who has shown dissent has been sent to Gitmo. No one has been arrested or tortured for dissenting against the government.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re:So what? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      > Sending an 11 page document in Flyspeck 3 typeface allows you to comply with the court order with a smirk on your face while saying "here's your effin' keys" and remain a free man.

      OK, so you do this, then they say give it to me in plaintext, and then you're back at square 1. No means no, and face the consequences. Alternatively no means burning down the entire email service, which he did and I respect.

    21. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assange is not wanted on rape charges. Jus' sayin'...

    22. Re:So what? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Says the guy without a metaphorical gun, held by the federal government, in his face.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:So what? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Saying "no" involves being jailed for contempt of court, and the FBI getting the keys anyway. They were fucked legally, in many senses of the word.

      ... and they were held in contempt anyway. For complying. But being douchy about it.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    24. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In about 60-70 years, when it's all finally declassified, I hope you're still around to learn how wrong you were.

    25. Re:So what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not this here is the comment that should be considered insightful.

    26. Re:So what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's called lying and will land you some hard jail time for contempt of court.

    27. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Sweden, it is considered rape to refuse to suck an asylum seeker's penis hard for a cuckolding session with one's girlfriend. (aka. prepping the bull)
      For this reason, people may be forgiven for believing that the charge is completely unrelated.

    28. Re:So what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The real news story is how lavabit was abused in closed court. And they fought back

      Reading through that a large part of what they did was just be incompetent douche-bags in the face of a lawsuit. Stuck without representation, they fired their lawyers mid case. Asked to hand over documents, instead did the equivalent of paying a fine with a truck of pennies. Playing the game is not meant to be confused with pissing off people in power to the point where they get tired of your shit.

      What the government did was wrong. What Lavabit didn't do is make it any better.

    29. Re: So what? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I agree, people are stupid.

      At least you're aware of your limitations.

    30. Re: So what? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I lack any kind of formal "shill training" so this is pure conjecture... but aren't you supposed to be capable of being a little less obvious about it?

    31. Re:So what? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      They were in a FISA court, and being abused by both government & judge.

      They didn't really have any other options. Plus, this was a stalling tactic while they tried to think of any other options. When they came up with none, they shut down the company.

      In Soviet America, courts abuse you!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    32. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the phrase "don't state the obvious", do you know the meaning of the word "obvious"? Because it sounds like you don't.

    33. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Specially in the case that scenario is actually true?

    34. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying "no" involves being jailed for contempt of court, and the FBI getting the keys anyway. They were fucked legally, in many senses of the word.

      Fighting the government often involves being jailed.

      Being whiny about how you caved in doesn't count as "fighting" juts because you'd have had to face real consequences if you had fought.

    35. Re:So what? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stuck without representation, they fired their lawyers mid case.

      I think that you are rewriting history. The government got the case moved to a court where their existing lawyers could not represent them (not admitted). Finding a new lawyer with the requisite security clearance in the time required wasn't possible.

      The government screwed them over with the assistance of the courts. How well would you do in court against the government without a lawyer?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    36. Re:So what? by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting that anyone start lying. If security is important, just take the extra steps and get hardware that protects the keys and contracts to divide the access.

    37. Re:So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Why would I have to wait for that?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    38. Re: So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why you are following me around on this topic and trying to claim I am a shill for repeating things that are available easily on the internet. But I guess you are another paranoid schizophrenic. You should go knock on the window of all of those people spying on you outside!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    39. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And convicted in a secret FISA court, where you cannot tell anyone about what they are doing to you.

    40. Re:So what? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Roman Polanski

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    41. Re:So what? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      OK, so you do this, then they say give it to me in plaintext, and then you're back at square 1

      Days or weeks later. Stall tactics like that are important in legal maneuvering as they give you time to plan your next move weigh your options without facing a contempt charge.

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

      Ah - just a blatent ad hominem troll then. Very good.

      Even the captcha gets it!

      "subclass"

      I think that's being generous.

    43. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the people who protest outside of Free Speech Zones or the people who were assaulted during Occupy protests.

    44. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't give up the keys, then you can't use them either.

    45. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can create revocable chains of trust, and even have batches of single-use keys. A "stream" is like the latter. The inner-level keys would suddenly stop working at producing new keys or recovering old ones (if allowed). The moment the company is seized, there's a short time window before the keys are revoked. The way it works is that the key protocols prevent unrevoking because well, 'math' combined with physical isolation. Hmm, someone should/likely already has written a novel about an international manhunt (where they get arrested in sync[1000-knives method] so as not to have minimum keys erased in panic) by a S.H.I.E.L.D.-like organization. And several large Asian countries arrest some of the kidnappers, Dog bounty-hunter style. ;P

    46. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he just likes to like the authorities ass.

    47. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they just get droned, then have their kid get droned.

    48. Re:So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean actively engaging in terrorism might get you killed? That is a huge surprise to me. Planning terror attacks is exactly the opposite of protesting. Protesting is changing things peacefully, terrorism is forcing others to do what you want by causing terror in them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    49. Re:So what? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They were tortured in Gitmo? That is news to me.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. The real question, is by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 1

    was it an accident? Or was it hate for the in charge?

  4. That was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no accident. The government intended people to know that they'll shut down any service if you piss them off enough.

    -memnock

  5. Ed_Snowden@lavabit? seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would seem to me that someone who seemed so paranoid (rightfully so) would use a pseudonym or alias of some sort.

  6. "accidentally" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...yeah, I'll bet.

  7. Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy hasn't done anything wrong, yet lost his business due to governmental pressure.

    The government (which in effect means the taxpayers) should compensate this man for the loss of his business. He had the personal integrity to stand up for his users even at great personal cost to himself. If our society shits on people like that, while the ones who succeed are people like this, then I think we've lost the plot. Our society is rotten to the core.

    We need to start treating people like Snowden (or apparently this Levison chap) with respect for their service to the public, and punishing the people who are responsible for the wrong doings to begin with, rather than punishing the whistleblowers.

    Yes, the money to compensate him for the loss of his business comes out of taxpayer coffers, but it's lost in the noise of graft and corruption losses, and anyway, we, the taxpayers, elected the clowns that caused the problem, so it's really our fault in the end.

    1. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      THIS.

      I am so sick of the government's willingness to throw American companies under the bus and destroy jobs. I am glad Apple is fighting back.

      How much longer will we allow the economy to be wrecked for the perception of "security".

      How much longer until the global market for American products dries up completely because of fear of American spying?

      You've already got Microsoft offshoring cloud servers to get out from under Uncle Sam's thumb.

      The NSA, FBI and the politicians who support them need to be bitchslapped back into reality here.

    2. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy hasn't done anything wrong, yet lost his business due to governmental pressure.

      I don't think you quite understand what happened.
      HE chose to shut down the service entirely, he was not forced to do it nor even asked to do it.
      If HE had done a better job setting it up, then giving access to a single email account would not have allowed access to the others. But since he chose to protect ALL the accounts with a single key, giving that one key up would have compromised them all.

      I'm not defending the government or making any claims regarding the need or validity of their actions. But ultimately he lost his business because he didn't set it up right in the first place.

    3. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we, the taxpayers, elected the clowns that caused the problem, so it's really our fault in the end.

      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    4. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      he was not forced to do it

      He was forced to do it. If I come up to you with a gun and say, "your money or your life", sure, I haven't forced you to give me your money. You had a choice, didn't you?

      When you use threats and force to get your way, then yes, you are forcing the other party into the actions they take. Without unconstitutional governmental overreach and assault on a legitimate whistleblower, he would not have been in the position of having to shut the business down.

    5. Re:Levison should be made whole by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "I'm not defending the government or making any claims regarding the need or validity of their actions. But ultimately he lost his business because he didn't set it up right in the first place."

      You are defending the government and making claims about the validity of their actions. You're saying that he should have been mindful to support government surveillance when he created the company.

      He didn't have access to the email btw. He set it up as properly as you could. The government wanted access to the servers so as to modify the code to allow them to surveil Snowden... when he logged in.

      Web-based PGP crypto sites are a shortcut to PGP. If you have a method to do this "properly" and avoid this weakness, I'd love to hear it.

    6. Re:Levison should be made whole by lxs · · Score: 1

      Giving access to a single account would have been a direct betrayal of all his clients and of his personal code of ethics.
      It's encouraging to see that there are still businesspeople out there that place doing the right thing over making a profit.

    7. Re:Levison should be made whole by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 4, Informative

      The government asked for his TLS key, so that they could capture passwords as they were being sent to the servers. There is no way each user could have been given a separate TLS key. I dont think you understand how any of this works. It was either sell all his users or shutdown (and still be in contempt of court).

    8. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is such a thing as a "legitimate whistleblower".

      I mean, what the guy did was admirable, right, necessary and all, but legitimate it was not.

    9. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did set it up wrong then.

      Why were passwords being transmitted at all? There's ways around that. ZKPP for one.

    10. Re:Levison should be made whole by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      When you use threats and force to get your way, then yes, you are forcing the other party into the actions they take.

      Why I am a libertarian. In a single sentence. Keep in mind, most of our Taxes are based upon this very thing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple isn't really fighting for american jobs now is it.

    12. Re:Levison should be made whole by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Helsingius has been a personal hero of mine since 1996.
      Levison joins him on that very short, very distinguished list.

      Pamela Jones may make it a trio, if we find out she shut down Groklaw due to actual attempts to compromise her sources rather than fears that might happen.

    13. Re:Levison should be made whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a libertarian because you're a deluded asshole Mike.

  8. The Government puts Top Men on the job.... by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

    . . . .Top men, I tell you. . . . (grin) Mind you, even a layman can see what a clown car it usually is. . . . The fact that MOST of the evidence that Snowden was the target was redacted, probably got some Fed promoted to GS-15, and a nice performance bonus.

    1. Re:The Government puts Top Men on the job.... by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      You think people get promoted for redacting? Nobody gets a promotion for properly redacting anything.

      Corporate Redactions used to be done by legal assistants, but the trend has moved to have lawyers do them. It would not surprise me if the DOJ had assistants do it, rather than senior people.

      No one ever cares about redactions done properly, you can't get a promotion for doing it well, only a demotion/firing for doing it poorly

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:The Government puts Top Men on the job.... by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but a good job of cock-blocking a FOIA request WILL often get you promoted. . . Lord knows, it explains far too much about Washington. And I suspect the other national capitals are pretty much the same, or worse. . .

  9. You win, and then you lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now that this has shown up, expect further FOIAs to be blocked and delayed even more than they already are. Yelling 'ha ha' at the government is never good for the people.

  10. Accidentally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as subject

  11. Conservative objections? by jodido · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where were all the conservatives who complain about government regulation strangling businesses when government regulations strangled Lavabit?

    1. Re:Conservative objections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you actually read the articles, you would have seen at the time that they were there. Conservatives are and were against unbounded government intrusion "security at the expense of liberty"; there's a lot in common with pure Libertarians and republican Conservatives. Just as the Democrat party is composed of factions of Communist, big-government Statist, Social Liberal and hands-off-my-freedom Libertarian elements, the Republicans are composed of big-government Statist, individualist Conservative and hands-off-my-business Libertarian factions.

      This is why there is such a schism in the GOP in this election cycle, where the large-government status-quo establishment is fighting to retain power in light of populist & conservative challengers leading the race.

    2. Re:Conservative objections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where were all the conservatives who complain about government regulation strangling businesses when government regulations strangled Lavabit?

      Probably at the same place as the "All life is sacred" crowd hides whenever a criminal is executed, someone gets shot by the police or soldiers are sent off to kill people in a foreign land.

      People seldom say what they really want because human desires tend to be petty and hard to write good catchphrases for.

    3. Re:Conservative objections? by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Could you point me to one of those articles? I am having trouble finding them.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Conservative objections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I misread "big-government Statist" as "big-government Satanist". Was way more entertaining for a moment...

    5. Re:Conservative objections? by EricTheO · · Score: 0

      Actually if you look at what the Conservative movement has been about since Reagan it is more akin to Fascism and Corporatism. Any individualism is subsumed by conservatives "voting against their own best interests".

      --
      -Eric
  12. Re:Trump must be stopped at all costs! by mi · · Score: 1

    If terrorists are using the Internet, then take the Internet away.

    Except it is not, what Mr. Trump has said. Interestingly, the article you linked to, while quoting rebuttals, does not offer the actual quote from Trump — a sure sign, they are attacking a strawman. That alone should tell you, you are being deliberately misinformed (also known as "lied to").

    I'll leave finding the actual text to you as an exercise. I've watched the debate live myself, so I don't need it regurgitated to me by moronic journalists.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. Re:Ed_Snowden@lavabit? seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, all of this could've been avoided if he just used Not_Ed_Snowden@lavabit.com

  14. Really? by jimbob6 · · Score: 2

    Does any one really believe that Edward Snowdens email address is 'Ed_snowden@lavabit.com' ?

    1. Re:Really? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does any one really believe that Edward Snowdens email address is 'Ed_snowden@lavabit.com' ?

      No. He would either have capitalized both the E and the S.or neither.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Really? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      The Government might. Not the NSA, of course. They're pretty competent. Probably not the FBI. Maybe the justice department. They're like the NSA's retarded kid brother. You know, the one your friend always had to watch and had to wear a helmet to go safely out of the house. Some flunky over there might actually believe you'd put your real name on an anonymous Email service.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Really? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why not? Did you find any evidence of a man using a pseudonym? His twitter spells out his full name. People often use full names for email communication. It means they want to be easily contactable, not snooped on.

    4. Re:Really? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      No. He would either have capitalized both the E and the S.or neither.

      Clearly, you did not RTFA. The /. editors (or the submitter) got the capitalization wrong.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Really? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      No. He would either have capitalized both the E and the S.or neither.

      Clearly, you did not RTFA. The /. editors (or the submitter) got the capitalization wrong.

      I did RTFA but I didn't pick up on that because I have human fallibility.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  15. The worst part by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The worst part is that shit like this is no longer surprising or noteworthy.

    There was a time when a revelation like this would have been major news, all the papers and news stations would have had a field day with it, and heads would have rolled. Now there's barely the merest hint of interest, and not a shred of outrage.

    The public has been thoroughly desensitized to what should be seen as egregious and illegal behavior by the government, yet for most people it's basically a snoozefest.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:The worst part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of the media sources are owned by 6 huge corporation, which is mostly the result of consolidation of the 90 or so companies that owned such sources in the 1980's. They are spreading very carefully crafted messages, by billionaires, for billionaires. Of course they're not going to give good coverage to these things, as then people might notice the emperor really is just naked.

    2. Re:The worst part by FlacoFuerte · · Score: 0

      Just take CBS as the foremost example. 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, the more serious daily morning wake-up news- arguably the most credible news lineup of the major networks. But they put ex-CIA guys on editorial payroll- Mike Morell & John Miller. Charlie Rose has been carrying so much water for the anti-Apple and anti-Snowden people for the past year, you'd think he was on their payroll too. These guys are allowed on a regular basis to plead the government case with nary a whiff of contrasting opinion. The pro-encryption, limited govmt surveillance side gets barely a squeak in relative to the barrage of threatening ex-spooks warning of ever-present encryption-toting boogeymen. In general, the media has become stenographers for government mouthpieces who frame the debate and mold the news cycle while questioning authority has become verboten since that loses access to sources. It can't be surprising that the general public has had their opinion shaped the way it has when the debate is framed by technophobic dinosaurs & J. Edgar Hoover's torch-bearers. It had to be Apple that finally took a stand - if it were Samsung, ATT, Google, anybody else- the debate would be even more lopsided than it already is. Praise be to Tim Cook for picking up the fight where Lavabit couldn't.

    3. Re:The worst part by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      It should be surprising that the government is incompetent or it should be surprising that the government wanted to look at the emails of a suspect traitor/contract breaker? There are people that believe that Snowden should be protected under leaker laws, but even they are likely to believe that the government would be within its rights to look into what and how he leaked the government documents.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:The worst part by dj245 · · Score: 2

      The worst part is that shit like this is no longer surprising or noteworthy.

      There was a time when a revelation like this would have been major news, all the papers and news stations would have had a field day with it, and heads would have rolled. Now there's barely the merest hint of interest, and not a shred of outrage.

      The public has been thoroughly desensitized to what should be seen as egregious and illegal behavior by the government, yet for most people it's basically a snoozefest.

      The most popular news companies don't devote any time to long-term stories, or do any investigative journalism anymore. The focus is on being first and being entertaining. Most are bought and paid for on certain issues.

      There are many outfits that still do news the old-fashioned way, but they are usually small, niche, and don't have the funding that the major networks have. They also have different focuses and strengths. News today is about figuring out who has an agenda on a topic-by-topic basis. Vice News is usually very fair and unbiased with stories about Russia and North Korea, but their environmental and weed stories are obviously biased. Russia Today (RT) is a decent source of news for topics that don't involve the interests of Russia (such as their coverage of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake). BBC has been covering the European refugee crisis very well, but a lot of their news isn't relevent to US citizen. It shouldn't be required to figure out which news organizations may have an agenda on a certain topic, and avoid those organizations on those topics, but that's the way it is now.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    5. Re:The worst part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly I have to agree with you. the generation raised with computers seems to be quite apathetic. The accepting of windbloze with all it's redundancies and pop ups like: "You Must" Does having little to no choice stunt the desire for independence? there's a generation of cattle out there . sheople . lemmings .. flaming idiots {who else could stomach the garbage from tRump? it's a plot to make chillary look like the lesser evil.

    6. Re:The worst part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are not desensitized to the government's egregious and illegal behavior; they are actively and vocally supportive of it. My elderly relatives (who all vote in every election, of course) just love that the NSA, FBI, etc are working so hard to keep us safe from terrorists. My jaw hit the floor when I heard this shit, but these are not dumb hicks I'm talking about -- they are well educated, intelligent people who "have nothing to hide." They are the majority. We are a few wacko discontents who mostly don't even vote.

      Snowden was big news back in 2013 because it looked like a big juicy scandal that would sell lots of papers. Since then the media have realized that only a very small minority gives a shit about it.

  16. Snowden, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, do not find this surprising.
    What I'd like to know is whether or not they have done this for anyone else.
    Hopefully, no one, but I would not be surprised if the Government hasn't done this many times.....

    The extent of the covert operations in this country is apalling, and needs to be stopped.
    Unless, of course, the same is also done to our leaders. Find every bit of dirt on them and publicize it all....
    What's good for the goose...

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Re:I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had actually been offered and taken the job and worked there, then you would know how wrong almost all of what you said is.

  19. Re:I call B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He was an IT contractor who used social engineering to get the keys to the kingdom.

    IT implies access to everything. It's kinda required to do the job.

  20. Showing once again... by mscalora5355 · · Score: 1

    Showing once again that the federal government can keep a secret about as well as a kindergartener.

  21. Why use anonymous email only to use your real name by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    I thought the point of lavabit was some anonymity.. why use his name in the email address? Willing to email as himself just didn't want others reading what he was sending I guess?

  22. Re: Ed_Snowden@lavabit? seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I would have chosen MrNSAAsshat@lavabit.com

  23. Sadly by s.petry · · Score: 1

    This is something I see more and more. If you don't believe in a specific viewpoint (typically the "progressive" far left view), and try to defend your belief, you can only be a SJW. If you want to discuss or have dialogue, you are one of "those" and must be silenced. Not the way the world should work, but take a peek at a College campus today. I have a kid that goes to College and numerous campuses are pretty much the same.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Sadly by pnutjam · · Score: 0

      Yeah, when you someone says SJW, I immediately assume they are only interested in flinging poop, not fixing problems.
      No thanks.

    2. Re:Sadly by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That is your opinion, and not one shared by everyone.

  24. Lavabit then Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone considered the possibility that the government long had a back-door provided by Apple, and is now trying to save the day by claiming all terrorists can safely go to apple smart phones for their communication since its not possible to "crack" the code?

    They are simply "Herding" the animals towards the controlled choke point (Proprietary, encrypted system) to make it easier to tap into "Interesting" data.

    Simply because we are all aware now that they are the "bad" guys and everyone is Keenly aware that Microsoft is spying on everyone as is Google and all other big outfits from the U.S. forcibly controlled by the U.S. Secret courts and National security letters etc..

    I rarely have seen more gullible idiots than those paying attention to "The News" from major media. You guys are not too bright. Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

  25. You do realize the leak is intentional right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's no cold revolution in this article. Quite the opposite.
    The Feds are letting apple know that they have shut businesses down before and don't plan to flinch.

    Think about it. If Snowden was the focus of the investigation then they would know every document that had snow dens name and they'd specifically know the leaked one.

    Either that or the lava it backside was about general access not just Snowden.

    Either way it points firmly at Apple.

    1. Re:You do realize the leak is intentional right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's the best the Feds can come up with as a scare tactic, they've got another thing coming.

  26. Hopefully Trump gets elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And begins his extermination process. Then people might finally care when a military type shows up at your door wanting you to go to camp :)

  27. And these are the guys that want the signing keys by chaboud · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

  28. Encryption is a wartime weapon by pbr · · Score: 1

    If in doubt, research Alan Turing, what he did, how his team basically won WWII by besting enigma.

    Some years ago, people made fun of federal munitions export restrictions by printing simple encryption/decryption code on Tshirts. We were the enlightened, chuckling at how darn near impossible it would be to truly ensure encryption technologies didn't spread around like wildfire.

    Crypto DID spread like wildfire - the federal government's regulations couldn't stop it. Good encryption's everywhere now. (well, relatively good, mostly unbroken, but you never know what some genius will figure out tomorrow)

    Guns are everywhere too. Just as the law reasonably disallows individuals from waving around munitions and discharging them and such in public - it can disallow individuals from abusing wartime-level encryption. Just as arms vendors are regulated (albiet somewhat poorly) - encryption providers may very well be regulated at some point.

    As best I understand the law, in the U.S. you do not have the right to board an international flight carrying a device with military-grade encrypted data on it. It's hard, darn near impossible, for them to be able to assess this - but it doesn't mean you're not doing something illegal if you do it.

    Pure and simple - the fact that the data was encrypted at a given strength makes you dangerous. You become a criminal, because of what you are doing and how you are using technology.

    This is not new, nor is it anything to get outraged about. It's simply something you need to know, about the technology you're using. Just as you're not free to drive your car around in any manner you wish (over curbs, running lights, hitting people/things), you're not free to abuse encryption technology in various ways either. Get used to it.

    --
    -PBR
    1. Re:Encryption is a wartime weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If in doubt, research Alan Turing, what he did, how his team basically won WWII by besting enigma.

      Ball point pens are a wartime technology. If in doubt, research the history of how this technology was used during WWII to aid RAF pilots in taking notes at high altitude.

      The government can reasonably disallow individuals from abusing wartime technology, and do anything they want in pursuit of this goal, especially if they mention the t-word. All justifications of government actions will be done in secret courts, as appropriate for military technology and the global threat situation.

      If you keep ball point pens in your house, you should expect the government has the right to enter the house any time convenient to them to ensure you are not abusing this wartime technology.

      While we're on the topic of fantasy, Turing and his team did not win WW2. Enigma was useful, as was the independent Crypto effort in the Pacific, but it did not win the war (and even led to a number of mistakes). The Soviets stopped the Germans, at tremendous cost. They were aided by huge amounts of supplies sent by other Allies, including most of the ball bearings used in Soviet tanks/planes/guns/machine tools, aviation fuel processing equipment and additives that kept most Soviet planes fueled, gunpowder that went into Soviet weapons, winter clothing that kept Soviet troops warm, and the trucks and food that kept the Soviet armies fed and equipped.

      The Soviets were also aided by the British/American air campaign, which tied up and eventually destroyed most of the German air force, and required huge numbers of German guns, huge amounts of fuel and ammunition, plus over a million German personnel (all of which, if not for the air war, would have been on the Eastern Front killing Soviet tanks, planes, and men in huge numbers).

      Once the Soviets had stopped the Germans, the joint Allied-Soviet effort pushed them back to Berlin. The Allied armies in France tied up even more German strength than the air war had.

      In short, Allied superiority in military and manufacturing logistics, plus the sacrifice of a large number of human lives, were what won the war, not Enigma.

  29. Didn't Groklaw also shut down over this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the beloved PJ shut down the Internet's best web site Groklaw after what happened to Lavabit.

    So, there's more collateral damage right there.

    Oh, how I miss Groklaw. PJ, I'd buy you a million red dresses if I could.

  30. Re: Ed_Snowden@lavabit? seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Lavabit and Apple by pebear · · Score: 1

    I guess Apple has an order of magnitude greater amount of resources to fight the US Government. Of course the FBI and prosecutors don't really have a budget as they can spend enough money to put people on the moon to win in courts. The only thing we can do as citizens is to contact our legislators and tell them how we feel about the FBI wasting our money. We can also let them know about Lavabit being taken out of service because of the Governments insistence on getting into it's email system and how we do not want that to happen to Apple.

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  32. closing lavabit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if Apple has to Close to refuse what a tsunami there would be!
    if that's the only way to say no ? Just Say NO.
    my bet is the asshats have too much stock in Apple to let that happen.

  33. Poor guy by kmoser · · Score: 1

    Now that they've published Snowden's email in the clear, he's gonna get spammed big time.