Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the totally-shocking dept.

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.

4 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  2. 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).

  3. Re:Man!! Cold Revolution. by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not so good with teh Googles, eh? Here, LMGTFY:

    "Most Americans still think Apple should comply with FBI orders, new poll shows "

    "Poll: Apple Should Help FBI Unlock Terrorism Suspect's iPhone"

    "More Support for Justice Department Than for Apple in Dispute Over Unlocking iPhone"

  4. 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!