The premise is incorrect. Lavabit had provided data for lawful intercepts in the past. The government continued to press for unfettered access to all of Lavabit's data which then forced the shutdown.
Lavabit offered to develop a more involved solution for the government in order to prevent unfettered access to all of their customer's data. The court's assertion that the government could trust Lavabit because Lavabit didn't trust the government is both childish and assinine.
Lavabit offered to develop a more involved solution for the government in order to prevent unfettered access to all of their customer's data. The court's assertion that the government could trust Lavabit because Lavabit didn't trust the government is both childish and assinine.
Source: same article as parent post.