Of course I realize that, but we're not talking about abstract concepts here, we're talking about a narrow and specific set of circumstances.
Do you really think it was evil of the Feds to get a court order to inspect the communications of someone that was known to, without a shadow of a doubt, be leaking classified information? I do not.
I think Snowden was right to do what he did, I think the Feds were right to respond with a search warrant request to investigate him, and I think the judge was right to grant it.
Don't focus too much on Snowden. The rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to this discussion. Levison provided a lawful service to willing consumers. Snowden was the pretext the FBI used, but it's clear in this case that they also wanted the ability to surveil other customers of Levison's besides Snowden. That's evil.
> Don't focus too much on Snowden. The rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to this discussion.
Snowden is the context. Ignoring the context in rarely a good idea. And while I agree that the rightness or wrongness of his behavior is not germane to the discussion, his actual behavior is most certainly germane. If the Feds requested, and received, a court order because Snowden wrote a critical blog entry of the government that would be one thing. Requesting and having it granted because of his actual actions is another thing entirely.
> Snowden was the pretext the FBI used, but it's clear in this case that they also wanted the ability to surveil other customers of Levison's besides Snowden.
Is that absolutely clear to you? Because it isn't to me. The Feds gave Levison a chance to provide lawfully requested information on Snowden that did not require decryption and Levison refused. Okay, if they couldn't compel Levison to alter his code to provide the requested metadata, they could compel him to give up the keys to that information directly. What do you expect them to do? Give up and go home? Pout?
Levison stood up for his convictions and I applaud him for that. I'd like to think that I would have done the same thing in his shoes. That doesn't mean I vilify the Feds for doing what they did. I don't feel anyone acted unreasonably, much less evil, at least not with the information we have available to us right now.
What do you expect them to do? Give up and go home?
When they determine there is no lawful or ethical way to prosecute someone, I absolutely wish they would would give up and go somewhere. Unfortunately I'm not naïve enough to expect that. (I stipulate we don't agree on the facts in this case; I intend merely to contradict the idea that LEOs and prosecutors ever have to do anything.)
Is that absolutely clear to you? Because it isn't to me.
From the "big announcement" earlier today:
During an investigation into several Lavabit user accounts, the federal government demanded both unfettered access to all user communications and a copy of the Lavabit encryption keys used to secure web, instant message and email traffic.
Right, that's the same thing I just typed. They requested the encryption key that would give them access to everything after Levison refused to modify his code to give them access to only the one thing. If they're able to get a warrant for Snowden's data, and the only way they can lawfully obtain it is a method that also gives them access to everything, then that's what they are going to do.
Like I said, I don't find that evil. From their perspective, the only way to lawfully get Snowden's data incidentally required they get the keys to all of the data.
The entire point of Lavabit was keeping communications secure. It was in fact designed to have the property that you and the government would have liked to "modify" away. The government's position was akin to telling Ford Motors to sell dangerous vehicles to bad people, and then after they refuse forcing them to sell dangerous vehicles to everybody. If you want to outlaw safe vehicles, do that in an open session of Congress. Search warrant proceedings are not the proper fora in which to legislate what sorts of online services are legal.
It's clear that we have different thresholds for the concept of evil.
> The entire point of Lavabit was keeping communications secure. It was in fact designed to have the property that you and the government would have liked to "modify" away.
I truly don't see how that's pertinent. So because Lavabit designed a "secure" service and promised their customers secure communications, their customers, and by extensions Lavabit, are shielded from the judicial process of the country Lavabit resides in? Even in cases when they have the technical capability to comply? Seems a bit much.
Lavabit claimed security, not shielding from the judicial process (they complied with other warrants in the past, supposedly). And if they did claim shielding from the judicial process, then their product did a shit job of backing it up. That they could even technically comply with a warrant makes them just as vulnerable to the judicial process as every other service. How is that the government's fault?
> If you want to outlaw safe vehicles, do that in an open session of Congress. Search warrant proceedings are not the proper fora in which to legislate what sorts of online services are legal.
This statement is ridiculous. The search warrant process is authorized by Congress and issued by the judicial branch. It's no secret. Should every search warrant be run through Congress?
> It's clear that we have different thresholds for the concept of evil.
At least we can agree on that. As I've said, I'm a Snowden supporter, and I've contributed to the Lavabit defense fund. But federal agents investigating a national security leak by issuing a search warrant to a provider located in the continental US whose only means of complying is unlocking their entire service (whose fault is that?) doesn't fit the bill of "evil" for me.
At this point we're probably talking in circles though, so I'll leave my thoughts there.
Levison's conduct in prior incidents shows that he had cooperated with the gov't when the scope was limited to a single account. It is only when the gov't pushed for the ability to decrypt all customers' data that he refused.
