undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek11y ago0 comments

The US didn't kill Lavabit, so much as Lavabit decided to start an untenable business: one in which they vouchsafed secrecy to their customers but retained the ability to compromise that secrecy.

To understand how dumb that is, consider that AOL(!) runs a popular messaging service on which thousands of people exchange secure messages using OTR-enabled clients, and AOL could not be "killed" the way Lavabit was: the DOJ can't coerce AOL into betraying OTR-protected users, because AOL simply doesn't have that ability.

The reason Lavabit did have that ability is that getting users to install software is inconvenient and drastically harms adoption. Lavabit took a shortcut, and their users shared the resulting pain.

If you review the list of countries preceding the US on the Forbes list posted upthread, you won't find too many that wouldn't have left Lavabit similarly exposed.

0 comments

shmerl11y ago

Yes, Lavabit made a serious mistake of leaving a technical ability to compromise their users. However it doesn't change the fact that US killed it since the government wanted to have access to all users' data without any restrictions and warrants. Lavabit's mistake doesn't in any way reduce the abusive nature and unconstitutionality of that move.

tptacekOP11y ago

I'm assuming it doesn't change your mind at all that Levison cooperated with a series of unrelated preceding warrants, handing over user information, and that (as I understand it) the DOJ only demanded their expansive intrusion after Levison refused to comply in a similar fashion to a warrant apparently related to Snowden, with whose politics Levison agreed.

shmerl11y ago

He cooperated with warrants targeted at specific suspects. That's rather normal. He refused to cooperate with request to give them access to all users. They couldn't possibly have such warrant by considering them all suspects at once. They just told him, hand us over the keys or else. I'm not aware that he refused a targeted warrant on Snowden alone specifically. Or may be I missed that being reported somewhere.

2 more replies

Edsnowden11y ago

Totally agree with you shmerl, try using lavaboom.com, end2end encryption, zero knowledge policy and outside US jurisdiction.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstptacek11y ago0 comments

The US didn't kill Lavabit, so much as Lavabit decided to start an untenable business: one in which they vouchsafed secrecy to their customers but retained the ability to compromise that secrecy.

The reason Lavabit did have that ability is that getting users to install software is inconvenient and drastically harms adoption. Lavabit took a shortcut, and their users shared the resulting pain.

If you review the list of countries preceding the US on the Forbes list posted upthread, you won't find too many that wouldn't have left Lavabit similarly exposed.

0 comments

shmerl11y ago

tptacekOP11y ago

shmerl11y ago

2 more replies

Edsnowden11y ago

Totally agree with you shmerl, try using lavaboom.com, end2end encryption, zero knowledge policy and outside US jurisdiction.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse