• Email service reportedly used by Snowden abruptly shuts down
    118 replies, posted
[URL="http://boingboing.net/2013/08/08/lavabit-email-service-snowden.html"][IMG]http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/themes/2012/sundries/logo_bounce2012.gif[/IMG][/URL] [quote]Lavabit's owner has shut down service, with a mysterious message posted on the [URL="http://lavabit.com/"]lavabit.com[/URL] home page today.[/quote] Text of the letter: [quote]My Fellow Users,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. 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 [URL="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=7BCR4A5W9PNN4"]here[/URL].[/quote]
This shit is so fucked - especially coming from a supposed "first-world" country.
Freedom at its best
I understand why the government wants to hunt down Snowden but strongarming businesses and services is fucking pathetic.
I've only recently begun using Lavabit rather GMail for everything. This is so fucking retarded. I have no E-Mail address now.
This is disgusting. Dismantling an entire business and its consumers because the US government couldn't hold onto its secrets tight enough.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;41763725]I understand why the government wants to hunt down Snowden but strongarming businesses and services is fucking pathetic.[/QUOTE] It seems that his business was legally compelled to hand over relevant data and in order to fight that he's shutting down the business. Any government would make these same requests in the same situation.
[QUOTE=The golden;41763812]Not like anyone/anything can stop them.[/QUOTE] That's the worst thing about it - short of performing a coup nothing can be done to stop the government from pulling shit like this. They operate outside the law, or make sure they have laws in place that allow them to perform acts of abuse such as this.
[QUOTE=scout1;41763860]It seems that his business was legally compelled to hand over relevant data and in order to fight that he's shutting down the business. Any government would make these same requests in the same situation.[/QUOTE] It is more than that: [quote] 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.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Fangz;41763922]It is more than that:[/QUOTE] Gag orders are not exactly new. [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Noss;41763897]That's the worst thing about it - short of performing a coup nothing can be done to stop the government from pulling shit like this. They operate outside the law, or make sure they have laws in place that allow them to perform acts of abuse such as this.[/QUOTE] They operate outside the law by operating inside the law? Which is it?
[QUOTE=scout1;41763948]Gag orders are not exactly new. [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] They operate outside the law by operating inside the law? Which is it?[/QUOTE] Unlawful raids of Kim Dotcom's property, which lead to the shutting down of Megaupload.
[QUOTE=Noss;41764035]Unlawful raids of Kim Dotcom's property, which lead to the shutting down of Megaupload.[/QUOTE] So it was unlawful? Or did the government make it lawful? Which is it?
[QUOTE=scout1;41764044]So it was unlawful? Or did the government make it lawful? Which is it?[/QUOTE] The fuck are you on about? I'm saying that they do both of the things I stated, do you have difficulty reading or are you just trying to kick shit up like you do in every thread?
[QUOTE=Noss;41764054]The fuck are you on about? I'm saying that they do both of the things I stated, do you have difficulty reading or are you just trying to kick shit up like you do in every thread?[/QUOTE] Well it can't be lawful [B]and[/B] unlawful. Either the government did something unlawful (okay) or they made it lawful, in which case it can't be unlawful. You said it was both. I'm still wondering which you think it is. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Still threadshitting with terrible arguments" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=scout1;41764072]Well it can't be lawful [B]and[/B] unlawful. Either the government did something unlawful (okay) or they made it lawful, in which case it can't be unlawful. You said it was both. I'm still wondering which you think it is.[/QUOTE] You're an imbecile. The government create laws in order to be able to do this shit legally, AND break the law in order to perform acts such as closing down Megaupload. I'm stopping this now before you derail a thread again by getting hanged up on little details that are absolutely irrelevant, turning it in to a 10-page argument. You really should stop posting. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't feed the troll by flaming it" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
FYI, this also happened recently. I wonder if it's related. [quote=slash.org]"The founder of Freedom Hosting has been arrested in Ireland and is awaiting extradition to USA. In a crackdown the FBI claims to be about hunting down pedophiles, half of the onion sites in the TOR network have been compromised, including the e-mail counterpart of TOR deep web, TORmail. The FBI has also embedded a 0-day Javascript attack against Firefox 17 on Freedom Hosting's server. It appears to install a tracking cookie and a payload that phones home to the FBI when the victim resumes non-TOR browsing. Interesting implications for The Silk Road and the value of Bitcoin stemming from this. The attack relies on two extremely unsafe practices when using TOR: Enabled Javascript, and using the same browser for TOR and non-TOR browsing. Any users accessing a Freedom Hosting hosted site since 8/2 with javascript enabled are potentially compromised."[/quote]
[QUOTE=scout1;41764072]Well it can't be lawful [B]and[/B] unlawful. Either the government did something unlawful (okay) or they made it lawful, in which case it can't be unlawful. You said it was both. I'm still wondering which you think it is.[/QUOTE] He said they do both.
I am trying to rally up a protest here in Fayettville, NC, but most people I ask to join my cause either don't know or don't care. I'm not sure if i should be terrified of that, or angry.
[QUOTE=Noss;41764090]You're an imbecile. The government create laws in order to be able to do this shit legally, AND break the law in order to perform acts such as closing down Megaupload. I'm stopping this now before you derail a thread again by getting hanged up on little details that are absolutely irrelevant, turning it in to a 10-page argument. You really should stop posting.[/QUOTE] And your opinion on the case in the OP is that is an unlawful act, or an act made lawful? [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1297362&p=41763897&viewfull=1#post41763897]Your original post[/url] specifies neither, nor have you clarified, merely posting a general disagreement with the government which we assume is behind this. The only thing you're clear on is that this is an "act of abuse". Now I would like to respond to that if you could just please clarify whether you think the US government is violating the law in this instance or whether you disagree with the existence of the laws that make this legal.
[QUOTE=SataniX;41764106]He said they do both.[/QUOTE] And I'm asking about the thread we're posting in.
[QUOTE=scout1;41764151]And I'm asking about the thread we're posting in.[/QUOTE] Quite being such an arse, he meant both, therefore he said both. The shit the US government is doing is illegal, but they have created laws that grant them immunity, so therefore it is "legal". Quit defending this worthless excuse of a government.
[QUOTE=scout1;41764142]And your opinion on the case in the OP is that is an unlawful act, or an act made lawful? [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1297362&p=41763897&viewfull=1#post41763897]Your original post[/url] specifies neither, nor have you clarified, merely posting a general disagreement with the government which we assume is behind this. The only thing you're clear on is that this is an "act of abuse". Now I would like to respond to that if you could just please clarify whether you think the US government is violating the law in this instance or whether you disagree with the existence of the laws that make this legal.[/QUOTE] Based on the information we have to go on: [quote] 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[/quote] Its safe to assume that the government acted 'lawfully' in this case, which you either knew already and are attempting to shit this thread up, or you didn't know because you didn't bother to read the source. If I had a quid for every shit post you made I'd have around £13,681 right now. I'm done replying now.
This is why I no longer respect the nation that used to be the best of all. Disgusting.
This snowden? [t]http://imageshack.com/a/img5/5813/nvra.png[/t]
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;41764180]Quite being such an arse, he meant both, therefore he said both. The shit the US government is doing is illegal, but they have created laws that grant them immunity, so therefore it is "legal". Quit defending this worthless excuse of a government.[/QUOTE] That's a contradiction, though, and I would disagree with him except [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1297362&p=41764090&viewfull=1#post41764090]he denies saying such a thing[/url]. Now since you've put it forward I'll disagree. You can't say it's illegal and only "legal" because the rule of law that we are based upon has a system of checks and balances to make those laws. If such a law passes all the checks it is legal, it is lawful. If it does not, it is not. There is no such thing as an "official legality" and "unofficially legal" double standard. If I'm interpreting correctly this gentleman was compelled to hand over data he kept inside the US via the PATRIOT act (assuming) or other pre-existing law (doubt you'd disagree with those). That section of the PATRIOT act was lawfully passed through the legislative branch, Congress, and challenged in a local court where parts of it were found unconstitutional (illegal/unlawful). [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-ReauthNSLs115-116-128]It has since been changed and remains lawful.[/url] That means it was again passed through our systems of checks and balances, through the legislative and judicial systems of our government, and made lawful. You can't say it's illegal. You can say you disagree with it, you can say that it's against [I]your personal intepretation[/I] of the US constitution or whatever, but every bit of law we have says you're wrong. e: [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1297362&p=41764212&viewfull=1#post41764212]Apparently that's not what Noss is trying to say[/url], so please don't jump down my throat for asking for clarification when you yourself didn't even get the post.
thanks obama. :(
[QUOTE=scout1;41764281]That's a contradiction, though, and I would disagree with him except [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1297362&p=41764090&viewfull=1#post41764090]he denies saying such a thing[/url]. Now since you've put it forward I'll disagree. You can't say it's illegal and only "legal" because the rule of law that we are based upon has a system of checks and balances to make those laws. If such a law passes all the checks it is legal, it is lawful. If it does not, it is not. There is no such thing as an "official legality" and "unofficially legal" double standard. If I'm interpreting correctly this gentleman was compelled to hand over data he kept inside the US via the PATRIOT act (assuming) or other pre-existing law (doubt you'd disagree with those). That section of the PATRIOT act was lawfully passed through the legislative branch, Congress, and challenged in a local court where parts of it were found unconstitutional (illegal/unlawful). [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-ReauthNSLs115-116-128]It has since been changed and remains lawful.[/url] That means it was again passed through our systems of checks and balances, through the legislative and judicial systems of our government, and made lawful. You can't say it's illegal. You can say you disagree with it, you can say that it's against [I]your personal intepretation[/I] of the US constitution or whatever, but every bit of law we have says you're wrong.[/QUOTE] I thank you for laying out this information. However, I still stand by the fact that something can be both legal and illegal, as I have previously said. And I'll reply to this: [quote]the PATRIOT act (assuming) or other pre-existing law (doubt you'd disagree with those)[/quote] I do disagree with those laws, if that is what you meant in that snippet. The US government is, in my opinion, paranoid and over-powered. The system of checks and balances do not work correctly if the government, as a whole, is over-powered.
[QUOTE=scout1;41763948]Gag orders are not exactly new. [editline]8th August 2013[/editline] They operate outside the law by operating inside the law? Which is it?[/QUOTE] They operate outside the law, while pretending to be the law.
it looks like, that US is trying to fix, but they are horribly failing on every way
The world is falling apart
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.