×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Encrypted Email Provider Lavabit Shuts Down, Blames US Gov't

timothy posted about a year ago | from the land-of-the-free dept.

Communications 771

clorkster writes to note the following explanation posted to the front page of encrypted email provider Lavabit: "'I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what's going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.' No doubt this has much to do with Snowden's use of the provider."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OK. (5, Funny)

CaptainStumpy (1132145) | about a year ago | (#44513447)

So it has come to this.

Re: OK. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513481)

No, it's been this. Now it's just getting worse and getting more public exposure.

Re: OK. (5, Informative)

ThaumaTechnician (2701261) | about a year ago | (#44513557)

..and to the dipshit below. It's an obligatory XKCD reference. https://xkcd.com/1022/ [xkcd.com]

Re:OK. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513489)

Great post, thanks for sharing, dipshit!

Re:OK. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513851)

Great post, thanks for sharing, dipshit!

TROLLshit. Stop licking your ass.

Re:OK. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513549)

I see what you did there.

Great country you have over there (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513453)

I once lived there. I've been a tourist there a couple of times. I don't think I'll ever set mu foot there again. Good luck.

Edward, is that you? (4, Funny)

raftpeople (844215) | about a year ago | (#44513519)

I once lived there. I've been a tourist there a couple of times. I don't think I'll ever set mu foot there again. Good luck.

There's a great Piroshky stand in the East terminal of the airport, you should try it.

Re:Edward, is that you? (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#44513875)

No thanks, that involves being there.

Re:Great country you have over there (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513601)

very sad. once we hold you in great esteem USA, but now we doubt if it is a good idea to go there for a mere vacation.

Re:Great country you have over there (0, Flamebait)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44513603)

Good luck with that, it's actually worse everywhere else from what I can see.

Re:Great country you have over there (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513705)

Yes I've heard that people in the US are not aware of what's happening in the rest of the world.

Re:Great country you have over there (3, Interesting)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#44513907)

Having spent the past 10 years away from home, I can assure you that there are few places worse. Central Africa has some bad destinations if you really need to find one but most places are really great. Moscow really is a lot better from most aspects. The women are stunning and there is a lot to do and plenty of work, so he has really stepped up.

Re:Great country you have over there (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#44513745)

That's a shame, and I say that as a proud American. We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first); we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity, and some lovely people. We have some fantastic cultural things. It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place to everyone else.

Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough.

Re:Great country you have over there (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44513879)

Everyne else? I think we need to work on welcoming our own citizens first.

Re:Great country you have over there (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44513771)

good luck in the old country
hope you live a high carb diet of mostly pasta and potatoes, with bread and followed by diabetes

there is a reason everyone is a drunk there

And I'm proud to be an American... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513463)

Where at least I know I'm free!

Applause (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513469)

I applaud him for taking a stance against the snooping. Unfortune that he had to shut the service down though. Maybe he can move it offshore.

Re:Applause (5, Insightful)

Frobnicator (565869) | about a year ago | (#44513715)

Maybe he can move it offshore.

It is probably too late. The demand has already been issued.

He cannot destroy anything, it has already been demanded by the feds and destroying it after it is requested will land him in jail.

He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.

The best he can do if he (as the business) attempt to fight it is to surrender the servers to a court-certified secure escrow company; they will make duplicates of every disk and hold both the originals and copies in limbo. If the government takes a copy while it is still in secure escrow then they run afoul of the courts, not like that worries most of them as there are many ways around it like writing a generic statement that it is urgent for undisclosed national security purposes.

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the soul searching was if he should take everything to an incineration company and burn it to white ash, potentially facing prison terms for doing so. Unless that happens, everything on the machine is still vulnerable to the $5 wrench attack.

Re:Applause (5, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#44513749)

Unfortunately we don't know if it was legal snooping with a warrant, or illegal without. We do know that Ladar's rights have been seriously infringed in not being allowed to talk about the situation, so people are very right to be outraged.

Re:Applause (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513897)

Unfortunately we don't know if it was legal snooping with a warrant

Even if they had a warrant, that would not make it legal. In order for a warrant to be valid, they need things such as probable cause, and it needs to be specific. Some of the FISA court warrants, for instance, were simply ridiculous.

This might even be another case of the government trying to get access to everyone's information by having the company install backdoors and such, which would affect innocents as well as 'criminals.'

Just do what Snowden did (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513473)

Leak all the secret things the government is doing and all the information Lavabit's not allowed to tell us to Glenn Greenwald.

Then move to Russia.

Re: Just do what Snowden did (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513555)

Whistle blower not leaker! Grrrt.

Context (5, Insightful)

a whoabot (706122) | about a year ago | (#44513477)

So when Obama boycotts a meeting with the Russians due to concerns over "human rights", you may now know that this is a lie.

Re:Context (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year ago | (#44513621)

Actually, Obama is tired of Russia and China showing up the US about human rights :-p

Re:Context (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#44513687)

Read the stuff coming out of Russia on gay rights. Russia is not showing the US up on human rights; they have simply taken an opportunity to embarrass us on our own human rights failures, not because they disapprove of skulduggery, but because they disapprove of us. This is like a crack dealer turning in the mayor for smoking crack (hey, I live in DC, it's the first metaphor that came to mind).

Re:Context (4, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#44513789)

Correct. It was bizarre that Snowden ran to countries that are much worse on civil rights, but just want to make the U.S. look bad. The "America, Fuck No!" crowd is just as bad as the "America, Fuck Yeah!" crowd that told us we were traitors for opposing the Iraq war.

Re:Context (5, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#44513815)

> just want to make the U.S. look bad.

No, all the other countries - the ones who are publicly condemning the US but secretly working with them and/or sharing their information - are too scared of the US to let him in.

Re:Context (5, Insightful)

ChromaticDragon (1034458) | about a year ago | (#44513893)

Bizarre?

Regardless of your opinion an Snowden or any related matters, his actions do not seem bizarre as long as you properly weight his motives. I don't think he was trying to force a comparison between the US and other countries.

I would suggest his primary concern was to avoid extradition - you know... as in what most people are hoping for when they seek asylum for any odd reason. Given the far reach of the US in today's world, his choices were/are rather limited.

Re:Context (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513847)

To be fair, the Russian people have nearly unanimously voted time and again to restrict homosexuality in their country.

For better or for worse, Russian sociologists, psychologists, criminologists and biologists have created quite the documentation chain that causes their intelligensia to favor the restraining, if not outright ban, of homosexuality in their country.

The main populous argument goes like this:
1. In almost every White country on Earth, Liberals have adopted a stance that encouraged the rapid immigration of unskilled, usually poor, and usually less literate peoples with predominantly non-Caucasian DNA and cultures into their lands, largely since the 1960s. This has led almost inexorably and universally wherever it has been adopted to 1) vastly increased amounts of violent and/or petty crime, particularly rape and murder, 2) a general dumbing down of society, and 3) a host of other social morays associated with overpopulation of largely non-genius peoples who refuse to assimilate with the dominant culture.

2. Russia stands pretty much alone as the only predominantly-White country that still favors White peoples of European descent and culture, and favors those will skilled labor talents of all races.

3. Therefore, since the very beginnings of Putin's first presidency in the early 2000s, Russia has been adopting one policy after another that focuses on making sure that not only will the Whites not be grossly polluted with Southern Asians, Hispanics, Africans, you name it, but also those policies that facilitate higher birthrates in White women and higher educational standards and after-birth care for all Russian children.

In short, Western countries almost universally have been adopting the opposite, to the part where Whites will be a minority in America in just a few years (TX and CA already), crime will be rampant, and non-whites will be outbreeding us by 2-5:1.

Re:Context (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513931)

That's what passes for diplomacy these days.
US: stop executing dissenters' families
China: at least we don't have one of our states threatening to round up everyone who looks foreign!

US diplomat a minute later: I suppose that's technically true because you don't have any states and you will shoot anyone you catch trying to sneak out of North Korea.

Re:Context (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513873)

Emperor Obama has his own definition of freedom that can't be correlated with the public. He is an emperor, so he doesn't give a shit.

IF ONLY ... !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513491)

If only ALL THIS had come out before the 2012 elections things would be different now !!

Or would they ??

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (3, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#44513507)

It would probably be worst. Remember who actually enacted these laws.

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513553)

The people who lost the 2012 elections?

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (5, Insightful)

jerpyro (926071) | about a year ago | (#44513697)

I think we all lost the 2012 elections.

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513571)

It would probably be worst. Remember who actually enacted these laws.

And remember who ran under the platform with one of the key points being that he would repeal them.

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513589)

We wont forget that soon.

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | about a year ago | (#44513565)

You think Romney or Hillary Clinton or any of the Bushes would have done anything different? Only candidates that would would try to put an end to the corruption and abuse of power in the American system these days would be Ron or Rand Paul. They will never get elected because all the powers that be fear and hate them. If, by some fluke, they did get elected by the actual American voters, inspite of the negative media bombardment aimed at them, they would be assassinated in months.

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (4, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#44513595)

I do not think that, but I do think that the House and Senate are even more to blame. They wrote the laws and passed them, complete with a raft of deal-sweeteners attached, knowing that no sane POTUS would veto something that "protects us from teh terrorists".

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513637)

I'm sure there are also people on the left who would do the right thing (Kucinich?). The problem is that caring about freedom is the mark of a kook in the view of the mainstream media, no matter where you otherwise fall on the political spectrum.

Re:IF ONLY ... !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513935)

and Gary Johnson

Freedom (5, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44513509)

Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

Re:Freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513609)

Totally Not A Cop Guys

Re:Freedom (5, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44513623)

Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

I never saw freedom sold on the street.
We always had to grow our own.
Then we'd take it from our garden on a bus.
They'd tell us we had to sit in back.
When we got there they said we couldn't dance.
Yet somehow that light still shown.
We grew our own.

Re:Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513629)

No, the NSA has helped the DEA really crack down on them.

Basically impossible to find one now.

Re:Freedom (1)

Entropius (188861) | about a year ago | (#44513701)

It's $1.05 plus shipping from Amazon.

Re:Freedom (1)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about a year ago | (#44513793)

Or, if you're okay with 5-45 day delivery you can get free Super Saver Shipping.

Re:Freedom (1)

ericcc65 (2663835) | about a year ago | (#44513927)

It's $1.05 plus shipping from Amazon.

Actually it's an add-on item. You have to buy 23 times as much security before you can add on a little bit of freedom as an afterthought.

Re:Freedom (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#44513769)

Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

See if you can find a Crypto Party [cryptoparty.in] near you. Or contact your local hackerspace and ask if you can help them host one.

Re:Freedom (1)

alexhs (877055) | about a year ago | (#44513783)

Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

Maybe are you too close [aclu.org] to the borders ?

Long Live the King (1)

mrex (25183) | about a year ago | (#44513523)

Why not just bring up Bavalit?

Re:Long Live the King (1)

Pharoah_69 (2866937) | about a year ago | (#44513859)

I'd prefer to give a ring to Linda Bravabit

First Amendment (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#44513591)

In my mind, disallowing people from criticizing government actions and government policy is a serious violation of the First Amendment. It is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. I hope someone will challenge this issue in court.

Re:First Amendment (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44513661)

Exactly. Anyone involved in issuing or enforcing this gag order is committing a consipracy against rights [cornell.edu] , and is a criminal.

Re:First Amendment (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year ago | (#44513787)

We may have an independent judiciary, but do not have independent prosecution system. Do you think a President is going to allow his Attorney General to use these laws against his own agencies?

Re:First Amendment (1)

brainboyz (114458) | about a year ago | (#44513911)

From what I remember, the Attorney General isn't too keen to use these laws against anything related to government regardless of circumstances.

Re:First Amendment (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44513915)

You're an optimist. An independent judiciary would never have allowed secret courts in the first place. An independent judiciary would have denied at least one request for national security letters.

No, it's worse than that. All three branches of our government, which are supposed to serve as checks on each other, have conspired against the Constitution. They are ALL criminals.

Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis!

Re:First Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513759)

Your amendments don't mean shit anymore.

Eh, life in the big city (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44513593)

I am surprised the government let him shut down. That action alone probably violated the gag order.

Remember anon.penet.fi? (3, Informative)

RatBastard (949) | about a year ago | (#44513599)

That system go shut down by the Church of Scientology. The powers that be fear a populous they can not spy on.

Re:Remember anon.penet.fi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513657)

wow...I *DO* remember that. I haven't seen "anon.penet.fi" written down in ... a very long time. That brings back memories.

Re:Remember anon.penet.fi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513695)

Why did the church of scientology want to spy on Fins?

Legally (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44513605)

The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.

Re:Legally (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44513669)

The government obey the law, at least the one that it been rewriting for years to let them do whatever they want.

Re:Legally (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44513773)

The Constitution is the law, and it has not been rewritten. The government can obey the Constitution, it can rewrite the Constitution, or it can completely ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. It has chosen the last option.

We are ruled by criminals. Not just in the winking "crooks & liars" way, but geniune thugs no different than any other strongman government.

Dropped that step some time back (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44513845)

The government obey the law

No they don't, they have taken to just ignoring the law, using it primarily these days as a tool only against those they disagree with or for partisan attack.

Re:Legally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513703)

Even if this falls under the PATRIOT Act?

Re:Legally (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513719)

The constitution is the highest law of the land. Any laws that violate it are unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

Re:Legally (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44513737)

The PATRIOT act does not supercede the constitution. This man has a constitutional right to speak out against the government, telling his personal story about how he is being oppressed by the government is absolutely protected by the first amendment.

Re:Legally (3, Informative)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#44513855)

Yeah, until they pass an amendment, the government cant do shit. Here is the relevant law:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

He should make a public redress of grievances listing all the information he has and release it to the press. We need a Martyr to fight those in power. I just don't know if the operator of Lavabit wants to get crucified by parallel construction [reuters.com] . As long as they have a culture of fear, people will still refuse to stand their ground. This is not unlike what the Germans experienced in WW2 and Soviets experienced soon after.

Re:Legally (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#44513795)

The operator of Lavabit CAN legally discuss what is happening. He cannot *safely* do so, because our government does not obey the law, and will punish him for exercising his first amendment rights.

Good post. Well said. Thanks.

The death-knell of US cloud providers... (5, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | about a year ago | (#44513607)

Clearly the operator of Lavabit received a national security letter or warrant which he objected to.

Now since Lavabit is based on normal mail protocols, the operator has the ability to see all the data when it comes in, and obviously with a warrant or NSL, the provider can be compelled to provide the information to the feds. But I suspect that the request was not just something mild ("This sleazebag's mail account") but something broader, given the reaction was to close down the service completely.

In any case, this is also a great reminder of why the cloud, especially US cloud providers, can't be trusted. Companies who care about security are going to have to abandon the cloud and go back to insourcing their infrastructure.

Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513751)

Lavabit is supposed to be a zero knowledge mail provider. It was kind of their selling point. This seriously sucks so hard. Now I have to update a million different accounts because of this crap.

Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513757)

Clearly the operator of Lavabit received a national security letter or warrant which he objected to.

I would imagine (though don't know) that a warrant wasn't the issue. I don't know too many people who have an issue with respecting a warrant since that is, after all, due process. Law enforcement must go to a judge and convince the judge to issue the warrant based on the facts. The issue that most people have is the lack of a warrant in the vast majority of situations right now. I imagine that some gentlemen came knocking on Lavabit's doors, asked him to hand over the info, he asked to see their warrant and they said something to the effect of "we don't need a warrant!"

Warrant-backed searches are entirely acceptable and part of the process of law enforcement. Warrantless searches are a problem in just about every conceivable way.

(I assume I don't need to say that I have absolutely no clue of the specifics of this case and thus everything I'm posting is guesswork but, based on what's known, that guesswork is about as valid as anyone else's post...)

Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... (4, Insightful)

Dorianny (1847922) | about a year ago | (#44513865)

Like most people I do have a problem with secret warrants issued by a secret court all authorized by a law that if not in violation of the letter of the constitution, is most definitely in violation of its spirit.

Re:The death-knell of US cloud providers... (5, Interesting)

Havokmon (89874) | about a year ago | (#44513841)

Now since Lavabit is based on normal mail protocols, the operator has the ability to see all the data when it comes in, and obviously with a warrant or NSL, the provider can be compelled to provide the information to the feds. But I suspect that the request was not just something mild ("This sleazebag's mail account") but something broader, given the reaction was to close down the service completely.

I own/operate VFEmail.net and consider Lavabit a 'peer' in the email space.

I totally agree with your assessment. I've had to deal with requests and subpoenas, as I'm sure Lavabit has, and I've never been asked for broad access. In fact, the one time I did have to get 'in depth', I was specifically told by the agent in charge when everything initiated, "We are not installing any equipment at your site." In fact, he even offered to get me whatever I needed, and I declined, doing what was necessary to comply in-house. They only received what was requested on a signed subpoena, and were very clear they didn't even WANT anything else.

I have a sinking feeling that sort of mutual cooperation is no longer the norm, and I wonder if I will be similarly backed into a corner. Unfortunately by closing, it forces our user's to seek refuge with providers who don't have any problem installing spy equipment.

Service was immediately suspended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513639)

Am I getting this right? They shut down their email service from one moment to the other without warning users about it, without letting users backup their email?

Re: Service was immediately suspended? (1)

chill (34294) | about a year ago | (#44513779)

If you use a service like Lavabit and need advance notice to back up your email, there is something seriously wrong.

The Offspring's "Pretty Fly For a White Guy" probably describes you perfectly.

Re: Service was immediately suspended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513821)

I am also unfamiliar with this provider. Can you please elaborate what you mean with "a service like Lavabit".

Re: Service was immediately suspended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513885)

(Different AC)

I suspect they mean "a service where all your mail is stored on their servers", rather than a server that will store your mail until you download it, save it locally, then delete it from the server.

Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? (5, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about a year ago | (#44513651)

Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business? He built that! Now, if he's been a multi-trillion dollar bank, the government would leave him alone, hell, he'd be telling the government what to do.

This is just another example of "might makes right, we're a bully, and we're going to push the world around, usa #1 F-yeah!"

We are living in a police state; there's no doubt about that at this point.

Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513767)

Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business?

Is this a rhetorical question? Republicans are not the party of small government, they are simply the other party of big government.

Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? (0)

chikko1 (3007995) | about a year ago | (#44513881)

evden eve nakliyat kartal [www.evden-....htmltitle] firmalar inaat sektöründe uygun fiyat kaliteli hizmet tamaclk sunan sosyal ulamdr Her zaman güvenilir haritalar gezip dolaarak 7/24 bize ulaabilirsiniz.Sizda ayrcalklardan yararlanp deerlendirmek için frsatlara katln.

Re:Where is the GOP saying business-first shit? (5, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#44513923)

Because the current degenerate incarnation of the Republican party is NOT the party of Eisenhower. Nixon's racist Southern Strategy and Reagan's courting of religious extremists have driven out anyone who believes in individual rights and has an IQ over room temperature. They now make insane claims like that their religious liberty has been taken away if they can't oppress gays. They don't even know what freedom is.

We desperately need sane opposition to the Democrats, and the Republicans just don't qualify anymore.

so much for freedom in america (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513655)

Is someone really still stupid enough to believe America (especially) or any other western country (Americas whore-states) are free? Jesus, US is heading into a new, corporate-style of fucking fascism. It will still be fascism in the end. And all the people were to afraid to speak out.

All at once (2)

thereitis (2355426) | about a year ago | (#44513665)

If you can't smother the shitstorm in the media, you might as well get all your dirty work done in short order so this rash of privacy and human rights abuses can becomes last week's news as soon as possible.

Bull-Fucking-Shit (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44513689)

the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.

Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution. They can "pass" all the bullshit "laws" they want, but the fact remains that there is not a soul in the federal government who has the power to supersede our Constitutional Liberties. The only, ONLY legitimate way to alter the content of said document would be via a Constitutional Amendment approved by 2/3 of all state legislatures, or by the formation of a Constitutional Congress. Neither of these events have occurred, therefore your right to tell us that the NSA is trying to force you to turn over your encryption keys stands firm. Fuck you Stasi dogfuckers ('cuz I know you're skimming this).

FYI, by making such a statement, and doing as they tell you, you're only helping them perpetuate the myth that they can do this kind of shit and get away with it.

Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit (5, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44513801)

it is not a myth, the government is getting away with ignoring the constitution and committing crimes including seizing propery, incarcerating people without warrant, hurting people, etc.

Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513877)

> Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Doesn't matter when every branch of government is complicit in the violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Upheld by the Supreme Court.

Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44513887)

via a Constitutional Amendment approved by 2/3 of all state legislatures

Three-quarters. It takes 3/4 of the States to approve an Amendment.

Two-thirds of the States are required to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments (which still require 3/4 of the States to approve them).

Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513889)

Yeah, but they can through you in a dark hole. Then if a (not secret) court actually hears your 1st amendment claims it can be drawn out so much that you have your life destroyed by lawyers and press. People want to live their lives and not have to be examples or pillars of strength. That's why these laws get passed in the first place. If I were in his shoes I don't think that I would do anything different.

Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513899)

They could declare him an "enemy combatant" and throw him in Gitmo or a naval brig without trial.

Re:Bull-Fucking-Shit (-1, Offtopic)

chikko1 (3007995) | about a year ago | (#44513903)

evden eve nakliyat kartal [evdeneve-n...tanbul.com] firmalar inaat sektöründe uygun fiyat kaliteli hizmet tamaclk sunan sosyal ulamdr Her zaman güvenilir haritalar gezip dolaarak 7/24 bize ulaabilirsiniz.Sizda ayrcalklardan yararlanp deerlendirmek için frsatlara katln.

hmm... freedom is expensive! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513699)

From the front page of Lavabit: "Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fund".
Well, i am just a Greek, but defending your constitution (the whole of it, not just a part) against internal and external threats is also expensive and you have to pay the price helping the American Defence by sharing some of that costs - you have enemies so those rights you always demand must be reduced a little.

Scam ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513723)

Is this Levison guy legitimate ? He is asking for money, maybe this is a scam ???

so to the inhabitants of the home of the brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513811)

that flag still fly O'er the land of the free ?

How the media will spin this (5, Insightful)

harvestsun (2948641) | about a year ago | (#44513819)

"Lavabit - an encrypted email service which is used by pedophiles and terrorist networks - was shut down after refusing to give the government access to important data that could have lead to arrests."

Re:How the media will spin this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44513905)

" that could have prevented innocent children from being harmed."

Shesh, you spin like a first grader :)

Story leaves out important bits (5, Informative)

SailorSpork (1080153) | about a year ago | (#44513835)

Also from the front page:

What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

Sincerely,
Ladar Levison
Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC

Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fund here.

He leaves a link to donote to their legal defense fund. In other words, he's still fighting it, but in secret shadow court.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?