> The filings show that Lavabit was served on June 28 with a so-called “pen register” order requiring it to record, and provide the government with, the connection information on one of its users every time that user logged in to check his e-mail.
How is that different than previous warrants? How is that sketchy?
That warrant was different because it was for Edward Snowden.
Lavabit clearly feels he is a legitimate whistleblower. There is a reasonable argument that protecting a whistleblower from surveillance is morally valid (especially when his opposition to surveillance is the core of ).
Whether or not one thinks Lavabit should have done this probably depends on one's views on what Snowden did.
No it was not different because it was for Edward Snowden, but because even if Snowden was named in the order, the FBI wanted the access to everything by installing their own device on the point where nothing is encrypted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487778
Here's the thing. Whistleblowers do get protection... but mostly protection from retaliation for their whistleblowing. But if a proper investigation is obstructed, how are we to be certain they are a legitimate whistleblower (there are rules that need to be followed) and not just some guy spilling classified info? I would maintain that it was not Lavabit's place to render a verdict of not guilty and defy the court order. If the cops show up at my house with a search warrant for my wife's closet, I don't get to just tell them I don't think she did it and close the door on them.
I guess the question is "at what point is it morally correct to resist government powers, even if those powers are legally granted?".
All would agree it comes at some point (insert references to morally repugnant dictatorships etc).
Even democratically elected governments cross the line (insert historical references to 1930's Europe).
Even "good" governments cross the line (insert reference to numerous examples of legal persecutions of minority groups in most democracies).
Sometimes civil disobedience is a the morally correct thing to do. Was it in this case? Personally, I'm not sure either way.
While I agree 100% that Lavabit's actions were unlawful, just saying "there are rules" isn't enough to convince me that those same actions were "wrong".
I think a better question is "at what point does anyone get to tell anyone else that their morals must match?"
I'm glad we can agree that Lavabit's action were unlawful... but please don't quote me out of context. "There are rules" was with regard to there being certain rules that need to be followed in order to qualify as a legitimate whistleblower. If you would like to argue that those rules need not be followed then I'll respectfully decline.
Yes. Lets. Oh... we already do. Why not this time? Should we let 4chan or Reddit define it? Who then? Not every single person in every single department in every single 3-letter org is a corrupt asshole just waiting for their chance to stick it to some innocent.
Of course they are not. That is not how tyranny works. It works by everyone doing there part, asshole or not. The tyranny is ingrained in the system itself so its seems just normal.
And we can all see what is normal in the US today.
Well, if everyone decided that "happens later" he'd most likely be dead or in Guantanamo Bay right now, so... Someone has to make a decision based on their own values at some point.
Not everyone completely lacks conviction and ideals, you know.
When was the last time somebody was shipped off to Guantanamo Bay? And seriously, dead? The first warrant the FBI requested was dated June 28th. Snowden was already in Moscow. How would Lavabit cooperating with the warrant have resulted in dead?
I don't know. Maybe if we knew all the details of this case and the previous cases, we could say. Maybe it has something to do with the architecture of the service. Maybe Levison felt that turning Lavabit into a real-time tracking device crossed a line he hadn't crossed before.
I just don't think it's right to call Levison rude names and all but convict him on these vague reports.
On the other hand, it seems like a poor idea to say he is a hero. It certainly seems like he decided that in this case of a legitimate court order(Snowden, right wrong or otherwise, did break a bunch of US laws) he wasn't going to comply --- though by his own admission he could comply for just one account --- and is using the fact that there is a gag order to in fact make his actions seem nobler than they were.
> It certainly seems like he decided that in this case of a legitimate court order(Snowden, right wrong or otherwise, did break a bunch of US laws) he wasn't going to comply --- though by his own admission he could comply for just one account
Why do you think that makes it a bad idea to call him a hero? Far from being a reason not to appreciate him, it seems to me that what you describe is the very action that people are describing as heroic.
Im reasonably sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to. He's certainly made it sound like that. So first, I'd say he is being very dishonest (if the article is accurate)
Second, a critical point in arguing against warrantless surveillance is that there are legitimate legal channels through which to get the necessary information when it's really needed and that those same channels make the NSA's conduct completely and totally illegal. Failing to abide by those mechanisms makes it hard to make that argument.
It's like having the EFF sticker that says "come back with a warrant" and then a "Fuck the police" sticker next to it.
> "Im reasonable sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to."
I cannot speak for anybody else, but feel free to consider me among those who consider the later to be heroic. He stuck his neck out for people that he doesn't know, but for whom he feels an obligation to protect. He gave up his business to do it.
Legalities never play a role in my considerations of heroism (except in cases where something being illegal actually serves to make it more heroic, due to the personal sacrifice that typically implies).
Do you really think that the SSL private keys turned over for this legitimate and specific warrant wouldn't have found their way into the warrantless wiretapping program?
No I don't at all, not at least without serious oversight by a federal judge and even then I'd prefer not to have to rely on that. But according to the article, they didn't originally ask for SSL private keys. They asked for Lavabit to give them Snowden's password the next time he logged in. They only resorted to that after they decided Lavabit couldn't be trusted for delaying and refusing to comply with the original court order.
Suppose Lavabit was a bank who got a court order to hand over the contents of a safety deposit box belonging to Snowden and refuses. The FBI demands Lavabit now open the safe that contains all the safety deposit boxs so they can go throw and find Snowden's box and open it. <Edit> and you just have to "trust" them they won't open everything</edit>. This is roughly what happened.
Lavabit is basically claiming that the FBI started out with the break open everything tactic. They are, if the article is true, lying.
No I don't at all, not at least without serious oversight by a federal judge and even then I'd prefer not to have to rely on that
If the data is being acquired under EO 12333, they don't have to report anything to the FISC nor Congress. Where do you see "serious" oversight occurring?
Lavabit had already defied court orders BEFORE they were asked for SSL keys. So it is kind of a moot point. Had they complied with the initial order, SSL keys likely would not have been requested.
Uh... in the document you linked to. Exhibit 2 (bottom of page 1, top of page 2) says this, exactly:
> IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3123, that a pet/trap device may be installed
and used by Lavabit and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to capture all non-content dialing,
routing, addressing, and signaling information (as described and limited in the Application), sent
from or sent to the SUBJECT ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, to record the date and time of
the initiation and receipt of such transmissions, to record the duration of the transmissions, and to
record user log-in data (date, time, duration, and Internet Protocol address of all log-ins) on the SUBJECT, ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, all for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of
such Order or the date the monitoring equipment becomes operational, whichever occurs later;
How is that different than previous warrants? How is that sketchy?