Email service reportedly used by Snowden abruptly shuts down
118 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;41764338] However, I still stand by the fact that something can be both legal and illegal, as I have previously said.
[/QUOTE]
In what circumstance might this be true?
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;41764338]
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]
It's not 100% perfect, part of being based on a ~200 year old document aimed at rich white guys. For example a law is constitutional until it is challenged in a law of court [B]and[/B] found unconstitutional. Of course the opposite system could exist (laws are not constitutional until verified) but that in itself would be a dizzying headache for passing new legislation and the supreme court has a backlog as it is.
[QUOTE=counterpo0;41764346]They operate outside the law, while pretending to be the law.[/QUOTE]
If the government makes the law, and makes a law that says taxing is legal, and then taxes, how could it be illegal? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it illegal. Now I think you might be saying that parts of the government is interpreting its laws rather freely when it comes to deciding what it can and can't do, but is there a single person or entity that won't interpret the law personally? If the government does stray outside the law we have the systems of civil lawsuit and the judicial branch to reign them in and effect policy change and compensation.
For example if you think the end result of this closure of the web service is illegal, you can go be legal counsel to the owner and sue the shit out of them. We are, however, still assuming the US government had some part to play in this. However even I would say that's a fair assumption.
i'm starting to think that scout1 is a government disinfo agent
[B]get him[/B]
[QUOTE=The golden;41763812]Not like anyone/anything can stop them.[/QUOTE]
viva la revolucion
[QUOTE=The golden;41763812]Not like anyone/anything can stop them.[/QUOTE]If everyone got together we could
This is fucking disgusting.
[QUOTE=The golden;41763624]This is what I have been using for the past few months. Just lost all of my shit.[/QUOTE]
FUCK i lost all my shit too goddamn
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;41764338]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:
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]
Quit giving this idiot fuel to continue the argument. He's either too dumb to bother debating with or trolling by playing devil's advocate.
[quote]My Fellow Users,I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people[/quote]
Are they so dense that they couldn't think of him having a backup email like [email]snowdenrussia@live.com[/email]? Better take down microsoft and yahoo mail services since he could easily have an account on those sites. Fuck it, take down Google mail for good measure, don't give that rat bastard Commie traitor any ability to communicate via email. That'll show em!
A little off topic, but people really need to understand that snowden wasn't just trying to out government secrets, he was outing DIRTY secrets that were being kept not primarily from our enemies, but from the American people themselves.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41764916]Are they so dense that they couldn't think of him having a backup email like [email]snowdenrussia@live.com[/email]? Better take down microsoft and yahoo mail services since he could easily have an account on those sites. Fuck it, take down Google mail for good measure, don't give that rat bastard Commie traitor any ability to communicate via email. That'll show em![/QUOTE]
How do you know it even has anything to do with Snowden?
Lavabit was my second mail provider, I've lost so many connections to various accounts I had on sites. I've even lost my backup email address. Lavabit is such a fucking good service.
[quote] I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.[/quote]
It's sad that it has really come to this.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41764916]Are they so dense that they couldn't think of him having a backup email like [email]snowdenrussia@live.com[/email]? Better take down microsoft and yahoo mail services since he could easily have an account on those sites. Fuck it, take down Google mail for good measure, don't give that rat bastard Commie traitor any ability to communicate via email. That'll show em![/QUOTE]
All he needs is a domain and he can set up his own email server, better take down the internet.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41764916]Are they so dense that they couldn't think of him having a backup email like [email]snowdenrussia@live.com[/email]? Better take down microsoft and yahoo mail services since he could easily have an account on those sites. Fuck it, take down Google mail for good measure, don't give that rat bastard Commie traitor any ability to communicate via email. That'll show em![/QUOTE]
As far as can be interpreted from the owner's post, (notice "Complicit") the owner chose to take down the servers himself. It doesn't make any sense at all to shut down an email server to stop communication unless it has some sort of unique encryption, and given the public availability of some levels of encryption I find that doubtful, although lavabit was toted as highly secure.
I still think it was the owner's personal third option, though, given the phrasing of the first sentence.
[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.[/quote]
"to become complicit in crimes [...]" indicates that he disagrees with what is happening and wishes to resist a directive to do something. Now given this is Snowden's email provider I will assume that the government is trying to access his emails, possibly to read, bug, or otherwise track him. Given the later mention of being lawfully unable to give specifics I'll also assume they came with a court order.
Now there's " or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit." which although presented as a choice given to him, I [B]highly[/B] doubt that such a legitimate choice was given out in a court ruling or order, and that he instead intends to circumvent legal culpability by getting rid of the evidence or otherwise preventing access to them by the government.
Or some black ops dudes threatened his family. Doubt he'd post a sort of "take that" going away message if that was the case though. Smells like a judicial order.
[editline]8th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;41764968]How do you know it even has anything to do with Snowden?[/QUOTE]
Given the gag order and the timing, I think it's a fair assessment. It could be coincidence but I'd wait for later news to see if it is.
Scout1, I'd like to ask you a question. Technicalities like whether or not they broke the law or made their own new laws aside, do you think it's okay that the government is actively suppressing legitimate businesses to (try to) cover their ass? Because it's not okay.
[QUOTE=scout1;41765072]As far as can be interpreted from the owner's post, (notice "Complicit") the owner chose to take down the servers himself. It doesn't make any sense at all to shut down an email server to stop communication unless it has some sort of unique encryption, and given the public availability of some levels of encryption I find that doubtful, although lavabit was toted as highly secure.
I still think it was the owner's personal third option, though, given the phrasing of the first sentence.
"to become complicit in crimes [...]" indicates that he disagrees with what is happening and wishes to resist a directive to do something. Now given this is Snowden's email provider I will assume that the government is trying to access his emails, possibly to read, bug, or otherwise track him. Given the later mention of being lawfully unable to give specifics I'll also assume they came with a court order.
Now there's " or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit." which although presented as a choice given to him, I [B]highly[/B] doubt that such a legitimate choice was given out in a court ruling or order, and that he instead intends to circumvent legal culpability by getting rid of the evidence or otherwise preventing access to them by the government.
Or some black ops dudes threatened his family. Doubt he'd post a sort of "take that" going away message if that was the case though. Smells like a judicial order.
[editline]8th August 2013[/editline]
Given the gag order and the timing, I think it's a fair assessment. It could be coincidence but I'd wait for later news to see if it is.[/QUOTE]
I'm just trying to be really sensationalist and stupid, either way what sort of heinous crime can be committed through an email service like his that would require it to be shut down or have legal action be taken? Maybe tens of thousands of spam emails are linked to the service and they're trying to nab the guy, who knows. The source is questionable as it usually is when it comes to these things, so it really would be best to wait for a second response from the owner or wait for headlines to tell us some kiddie porn ring was shut down because of it. Who knows, I've just never heard of an entire email service shutting down like that before.
Shutting down businesses because the man who caught the NSA with its pants down brought international applause is so ridiculous
The US consitituion doesn't even exist to congress anymore
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;41765088]Scout1, I'd like to ask you a question. Technicalities like whether or not they broke the law or made their own new laws aside, do you think it's okay that the government is actively suppressing legitimate businesses to (try to) cover their ass? Because it's not okay.[/QUOTE]
If the government was "suppressing" the business, you'd see something like the below. The post made seconds before yours indicates why I don't think it's much a problem but basically I am not concerned with the government lawfully pursuing information related to criminal investigations. Now you could say Snowden has not done anything wrong, and let's not contest the morality of his actions here, but if he's a whistleblower I am confident the judicial system will have him a free man. We do kind of have a history of letting that fly, if it really was in the public interest.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/25tDBWd.png[/t]
[editline]8th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41765127]I'm just trying to be really sensationalist and stupid, either way what sort of heinous crime can be committed through an email service like his that would require it to be shut down or have legal action be taken? Maybe tens of thousands of spam emails are linked to the service and they're trying to nab the guy, who knows. The source is questionable as it usually is when it comes to these things, so it really would be best to wait for a second response from the owner or wait for headlines to tell us some kiddie porn ring was shut down because of it. Who knows, I've just never heard of an entire email service shutting down like that before.[/QUOTE]
Spam operations typically aren't raided unless they're run through botnets in order to get the spam further (which is how most of them have been operating recently). It could be CP distribution or something, but the FBI is usually happy to announce all that unless it's an ongoing operation (i.e. catch more pedos). [url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/08/lavabit-email-shut-down-edward-snowden]The Guardian[/url], which I find to be a mostly reliable source, seems to be thinking along the same lines. To be honest I bet there'll be a "leak" or two after this, since the owner seems to have already bucked the plans in place.
Business owners don't typically blow everything up in response to interference though, I agree. However a large, large portion of the internet is tech-savvy, progressive, and basically feel very strongly on certain issues like this...
The fact that the owner is not allowed to say anything makes me think that he received a FISA order (possibly to give Snowden's e-mail traffic?), which would also prevent him from disclosing that he received such an order, hence he cannot disclose what happened.
[QUOTE=scout1;41765208]If the government was "suppressing" the business, you'd see something like the below. The post made seconds before yours indicates why I don't think it's much a problem but basically I am not concerned with the government lawfully pursuing information related to criminal investigations. Now you could say Snowden has not done anything wrong, and let's not contest the morality of his actions here, but if he's a whistleblower I am confident the judicial system will have him a free man. We do kind of have a history of letting that fly, if it really was in the public interest.[/QUOTE]
Considering the US has promised "not to torture Snowden," I highly doubt he'd be set free. Everyone who doesn't like him brands him a traitor and there's a line between whistleblower and traitor. Given the message from Lavabit it sounds like they were trying to somehow incriminate him simply because Snowden used his service, which might indeed have happened or it might just be wild inference.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;41765488]Considering the US has promised "not to torture Snowden," I highly doubt he'd be set free. Everyone who doesn't like him brands him a traitor and there's a line between whistleblower and traitor. Given the message from Lavabit it sounds like they were trying to somehow incriminate him simply because Snowden used his service, which might indeed have happened or it might just be wild inference.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they'd go after the webservice for Snowden's use of it. Previous precedents say that owners aren't culpable to users' use of it unless they were aware and took no action required by law. Considering that Snowden is simply a wanted man, and not using the site for anything illegal (as far as we know), there'd be no grounds to charge the guy and even less to convict him on anything. I'm not saying the government never screws up like that but if it's going to full retard I think they'd send a CIA extraction team into Russia before going after email owners.
We still need more information, though.
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;41764180]The shit the US government is doing is illegal, but they have created laws that grant them immunity, so therefore it is "legal".[/QUOTE]
It's illegal, but it's obeying the law?
When did 'illegal' start to mean 'something legal I disagree with'?
[quote]Court records show that, in June, Lavabit complied with a routine search warrant targeting a child pornography suspect in a federal case in Maryland.[/quote]
[url]http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/lavabit-snowden/[/url]
The owner has complied with reasonable requests before, the fact that he decided to shut down his entire service tells me that this was a bit more substantial than a child porn ring.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;41765088]do you think it's okay that the government is actively suppressing legitimate businesses to (try to) cover their ass? Because it's not okay.[/QUOTE]
Just wondering, did you read the article? It doesn't sound like the government is forcing a site shutdown, it sounds like the government legally requested information, and the guy decided to shut down his site (and destroy the data) rather than comply with the order.
If a person is suspected of tax evasion the government will request financial data from his employer. The employer is legally obligated to comply. They [i]can[/i] in theory shut down the company and destroy the relevant data but you wouldn't accuse the IRS of strong-arming them into closing their business because of it.
I haven't even been following this case, and I honestly couldn't give two shits, but now this is getting ridiculous. On the one hand, I want Snowden to stay free just to piss off the government, but on the other, I want him to give in and end this bullshit already.
From what people are saying, it could have been a FIMA on Snowden's shit and, rather than give it up to the government the guy shut down the site.
The worst part is we will never know due to [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861]50 USC § 1861 of the Patriot Act[/url] requiring nondisclosure to anyone but the guy's lawyer.
[editline]8th August 2013[/editline]
You also have to give them the name of anyone to whom you disclose the information
Fuck it I'm moving all my email shit to my home hosted server.
[QUOTE=maurits150;41765955]Fuck it I'm moving all my email shit to my home hosted server.[/QUOTE]
Wont you be at risk of losing E-Mail if your home connection goes down?
[QUOTE=The golden;41763812]Not like anyone/anything can stop them.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit, you can but people are too lazy to even want to get up and shoot them down
[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]
[QUOTE=scout1;41763948]Gag orders are not exactly new.[/QUOTE]
What bothers me the most about your posts is this logic. "Any government might go ahead and try breaking down businesses to gather information for purposes that boil down to childish revenge, so we should just accept that these innocent third parties will have to take it up the ass from uncle Sam and well-intentioned entrepreneurs will have their innovations destroyed in the mayhem but it's ok because everyone else [power-tripping] is jumping off the cliff too, right?"
"Gag orders have been around forever, so they are inherently okay and can be applied at whim by governments, even (especially) when the governments appear to be violating their own country's people, but hey sometimes there are real uses for gag orders so who cares?"
How do you not realize how shortsighted this reasoning is?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.