Today the owner, Ladar Levison, had to hand over the SSL certificates by court order. It marks the ending of a long battle in court, with unfortunately it ending in the govenment's favor. I'm assuming the post is just a hacker way of acknowledging the event.
Interesting link, and much more informative than the other Lavabit news articles.
It's a shame the government didn't work with Levison to either allow Levison to add the requested intercept himself (which, yes, would have required Uncle Sam to trust him) or to allow a third-party (or even a third party requested from both sides) to audit the proposed interception code.
The judge is correct in stating that if Levison doesn't trust the government, then why should the government trust Levison, but Levison is clearly correct when he notes that giving up his SSL private keys would destroy the security of his whole infrastructure.
The government would have been far better off by allowing a service like Lavabit to exist with the cooperation of an activist citizen than to force him to either harm all of his customers or shutdown the service. Somehow I don't think the D.A. here realized how serious many civil libertarians are.
Props on Levison for trying to stick it out in the U.S. and make things better from within!
> The judge is correct in stating that if Levison doesn't trust the government, then why should the government trust Levison
The judge is incorrect. The U.S. Government was designed to not completely trust itself. That's why there are checks and balances. Giving the FBI the private key lets them have unchecked access to data encrypted with it. It is wrong to asked to not be checked.
Also, we have ample proof that the US Government cannot be trusted period. An entity that cannot be trusted can still reflect on itself, realize it has done lots of wrongs, and trust others that are reaching for higher standards.
Checks and balances are passe. They are the antiquated notions of dead men. With computers and the internet ensuring the proper administration of justice via self-appointed and self-reviewed secret committees, we can finally live in peace and security.
"It's a shame the government didn't work with Levison to either allow Levison to add the requested intercept himself (which, yes, would have required Uncle Sam to trust him) or to allow a third-party (or even a third party requested from both sides) to audit the proposed interception code."
No - it is a plan that the government doesn't work with service provider and instead demands data and intercepts that "just happen" to let them spy on an entire network.
Indeed, everything Edward Snowden has revealed points this being the plan, the modus operandi of the state everywhere. It has an official right a few reasonable seeming things and executes that right in a way that gives it the potential for anything and everything.
And it can all just look like a "shame", a mistake, "an example of how the government doesn't understand the Internet", etc.
> No - it is a plan that the government doesn't work with service provider and instead demands data and intercepts that "just happen" to let them spy on an entire network.
It's interesting that you attack the FBI when you hear them make an unsubstantiated claim, but you have no problem repeating claims you heard on internet forums. When you make claims like this with certainty, it weakens your position and reveals that you don't know what you're talking about.
I hope that any careful reader notices your entire post actual has no relation at all to the text my post above it (FBI unmentioned, while I'm sure they make unsubstantiated claims, I'm not commenting on the state's claim above, those "Internet forum" apparently exist in your imagination only too, etc). Such a reader might also notice your post follows a rather predicable rhetorical strategy. Perhaps there is an experiment going on.
That and the whole power imbalance. He has no recourse if the gov't lies to him, but if he lies or covers up evidence he will be ground beneath the wheels of justice.
Agreed, I feel like Levison lost a lot of credibility and damaged his case by dragging his feet initially. However when the judge said "why should we trust you?" he didn't explicitly tie it into that history. Perhaps in context it was a given. It seemed the opposing attorney immediately after argued that Levison couldn't be trusted, because he'd delayed on prior orders, and the judge agreed.
> It's a shame the government didn't work with Levison to either allow Levison to add the requested intercept himself (which, yes, would have required Uncle Sam to trust him) or to allow a third-party (or even a third party requested from both sides) to audit the proposed interception code.
They did. See the unsealed orders (http://cryptome.org/2013/10/lavabit-orders.pdf) The original order from 6/10 only compelled the production of a bunch of metadata from a single specific, named account (see page 4 of the PDF).
There was then an order to compel (basically: "We mean it, don't yank our chain") on 6/28 because earlier that day, FBI agents met with him (according to a later motion) and, quote, "Mr Levison told the agents that he would not comply with the pen register order and wanted to speak to an attorney."
After that order was issued, the FBI claims it "made numerous attempts, without success to speak and meet directly with Mr. Levison to discuss the pen register order and his failure to provide [the specific data requested in the original subpoena]."
It wasn't until 7/9, a month after the original order was served, that they then demanded the production of his SSL keys.
> The judge is correct in stating that if Levison doesn't trust the government, then why should the government trust Levison, but Levison is clearly correct when he notes that giving up his SSL private keys would destroy the security of his whole infrastructure.
This doesn't make any sense -- it's not symmetrical. The gov't should trust Levison they same reason we trust anyone that testifies in court. The power of the criminal justice system punishes those that are caught lying. Mr Levison has no recourse if the Gov't lies to him. He has a very strong incentive to carry out the modifications that they ask for to avoid fines and jail time if he lies about them. I'm sure they'd tack on "aid and abet" if he covered up any evidence.
More likely it's just the issuer doing what they need to do... it doens't matter that nobody will use it again anyway; from an issuer point of view, the certificate should no longer be valid. time to revoke it.
This looks attractive, but does not /really/ help: the reason people use Cydia is not to get apps, but is instead to download "extensions". It is not possible to install these modifications (things "be able to put five icons on the dock instead of the default four") on any of the modern mobile platforms without first jailbreaking: the ability to "side load" an app is honestly kind of boring.
That specific customization is possible but requires you to replace that entire component, so it isn't really a customization any more than saying you can customize that particular thing by just replacing the entire phone. ;P
This distinction becomes important when you want to install that customization on a device for which the stock launcher is not open source but has been customized to fit with other apps, or simply when you want multiple customizations from different people.
However, if you insist on something a little more concrete: what if you want to add new buttons to the Android notification center, add new features to the status bar, or affect the behavior of the lock screen? These are not apps you can replace.
The iPad is a one of a kind because of the retina screen. Try it for a week and you'll be banging your head against the wall looking at the pixels on your laptop/desktop screen.
Striking juxtaposition of this statement to the "new" Talk Show, (http://muleradio.net/thetalkshow/1/) in which Gruber makes zero mention of Dan or his decision to move on, and instead chooses to start things off talking about.. baseball.
Nonetheless Gruber comes out as a jerk... If it was indeed his decision, he should have handled it a little better with Benjamin (telling him sooner, organizing a last show, not reusing the TTS name on mule...), and even if one can argue that he doesn't owe the listener anything, an explanation in the introduction of the new show would have made a good segue...
I find it surprising that so many people are willing to say that Gruber has acted like a jerk.
If anyone has the right to be pissed it'd Dan, yet he seems to be fine (if disappointed) with what's happened. If he's not calling Gruber a jerk I think the rest of us should take our lead there - after all, he knows more than any of us and is personally involved in the whole thing.
Well, I'm certainly not as classy as Dan, kudos to him. But I don't see the point of hiding my disappointment just because I don't know them personally. As Dan said, when you listen to people on the radio every week, you feel close to them. The way it was handled lacked class. Calling Gruber a jerk is just an habit of exaggerating thing on the Internet I guess... We're not entitled to an explanation or a goodbye, but that's the difference between classy a douchy IMO.
haha, i'm not sure if that is sarcasm or not. i'm a designer that dabbles in code and that was my first attempt at JS. it works but i'm sure it is probably a disaster.
