
Lavabit founder Ladar Levison's promised big announcement - p4bl0
https://www.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/10153341982280038
======
acqq
Widely unrecognized in the other discussions on HN is that:

"During an investigation into several Lavabit user accounts, the federal
government demanded _both unfettered access to all user communications and a
copy of the Lavabit encryption keys_ used to secure web, instant message and
email traffic."

Note that the initial court order although appearing to target the specific
user demanded explicitly that Lavabit "shall furnish agents from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, forthwith, all information, facilities, and technical
assistance necessary to accomplish _the installation and use of the pen /trap
device._" ([http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801182/redacted-
pleadi...](http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/801182/redacted-pleadings-
exhibits-1-23.pdf))

Then defying the initial order was definitely not Lavabit protecting one
(famous) person as some wanted to present this case, as the goal of FBI as
stated in this announcement was unfettered "access to the Lavabit network
without (Lavabit) being able to audit the information being collected."

For the first time in history the general public can actually see the most of
the documents related to such kind of orders. Up to now the people receiving
such orders weren't allow to tell anybody even that they received them.

This is unprecedented.

~~~
tedunangst
Wouldn't the installation of the pen trap device be necessary to target one
individual as well?

~~~
acqq
Why should it be _necessary_ to install their device to target just one
individual?

~~~
tedunangst
For all I know, trap device could be FBI speak for USB hard drive. He needs to
plug in the hard drive so he can copy the data on to it. (I am aware the FBI
has other, much more capable network intercept devices. I suspect the term
pen/trap device is standard jargon for _anything_ that gets installed on site
regardless of capability.)

~~~
nicwolff
Your suspicion is incorrect. "Pen/trap device" refers to a "pen register" or
"trap and trace device" as defined by 18 USC §3127(3-4):

(3) the term “pen register” means a device or process which records or decodes
dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an
instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is
transmitted, provided, however, that such information shall not include the
contents of any communication, [...]

(4) the term “trap and trace device” means a device or process which captures
the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating
number or other dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information
reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic
communication, provided, however, that such information shall not include the
contents of any communication;

~~~
tedunangst
Wouldn't a hard drive onto which addressing information is recorded be a pen
register?

Clarification: point being the language of the law doesn't permit the FBI to
give you a hard drive. They have to call it a pen register, then they can give
it to you.

~~~
rhizome
Handing someone a hard drive does not allow them to monitor continuing
activity.

------
Lagged2Death
If you haven't got time to read the whole thing, consider these sentences:

 _In fact the FBI agents even admitted their intention to collect passwords in
transit so they could access emails protected by Lavabit’s encrypted storage
feature. This was in stark contrast the DOJ attornies who maintained that only
the metadata authorized by the court order would be collected._

Levison was running a business. A privacy business. After years of peaceful
co-operation with federal authorities, the FBI suddenly told him he was about
to not be in the privacy business anymore, that the business he'd poured ten
years of his life into would now shamble forward as a living lie, a thrall of
the surveillance state it was conceived to oppose in the first place.

And the motive for this dramatic move? An attempt to find the guy who broke
the news about how much spying the government's been doing.

That is, the FBI's instinct about how to handle a scandal about unprecedented
levels of domestic surveillance was to _increase_ their level of domestic
surveillance.

~~~
acqq
More important is that the collection was initially already demanded to be via
the FBI's own device (that they referred to as a "pen/trap device") that they
were to install and control effectively providing them unwarranted access to
all the traffic and all the content of it of all users. Nobody actually gave
FBI the warrant to access everything but they were to effectively have the
access. Later on they also demanded the SSL keys which have more or less the
same effect. There's a major difference between collecting the data of the
specific individual under investigation and accessing the data of everybody.
And this is the first time such secret orders are accessible to the public.

~~~
pilom
In the court transcript the judge says something to the effect of "lavabit is
an email provider and email providers in the US are required to comply with US
laws. The government has requested information which it is legally entitled
to. The fact that you designed your system in such a way to make that
difficult does not take precedence over the fact that they are legally
entitled to this information."

So basically, due to design decisions, the only way for the government to get
access to the data they are entitled to, was to hand over the master private
key. If lavabit had designed in such a way as to have one key per customer,
then the government would have only been legally able to request the single
key for that customer.

I'm not saying that lavabit should have had an SSL cert per customer, just
that the designed in a way which didn't mesh well with US law and they paid
the price.

~~~
acqq
No. Lavabit complied with earlier demands for the data of specific users. Only
this time the request was effectively for unwarranted access to everything,
direcly against the business of Lavabit.

~~~
pilom
"Only this time the request was effectively for unwarranted access to
everything"

Yes it was. Access to everything _for that user_. Which they are explicitly
allowed to request with a warrant (which they had) under US law. Just because
Lavabit could not provide the information for that user without giving away
everyone eles's information does not mean that the government can't have the
information for that one user.

------
devx
He's only received $50,000 so far, which seems pretty low to me for such an
important case like this. If you can't/won't participate in protests against
the mass surveillance and privacy abuses of the government, then at least
consider supporting those that fight for our 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and
human right to privacy, like Ladar Levinson does:

[https://rally.org/lavabit](https://rally.org/lavabit)

~~~
znowi
Can't upvote this enough.

This is a real opportunity to fight for user privacy and support the _only_
company that openly defied the government's unconstitutional demands. A virtue
we all longed for just a couple of months ago at the height of the NSA
scandal. But here it is now and instead we see comments picking on Lavabit and
questioning their moral qualities...

People just can't get past character debate. Bickering while their rights are
gradually stripped off under their noses.

~~~
d23
Donated. This is serious.

------
joelrunyon
For all of Google's talk of "don't be evil" \- it's pretty amazing to me that
this one tiny player has more balls to stand up for his principles & users
than some monolithic organization like Google.

~~~
jpwagner
This is not unbelievable. Google has more to lose.

~~~
gozzoo
yes, but they also have much more resources to fight and from what we know so
far they didn't even try.

~~~
chii
yea they do have more resources to fight, but from a profit perspective, its
unlikely to net any gains, and the gains cannot be only for google (fighting
for public good is never profitable). Therefore, its much better to just
comply, and take the risk that the users might find out later. Who knows,
users might not care, or might not be able to move off google at all...

------
adamnemecek
Someone posted a link to the Lavabit Court Orders in the comments.
[http://cryptome.org/2013/10/lavabit-
orders.pdf](http://cryptome.org/2013/10/lavabit-orders.pdf)

~~~
trobertson
I'm reading/skimming through this now, and most of the beginning exhibits
repeat a lot of stuff. Also, IANAL, so I may be interpreting some of this
incorrectly.

On the PDF's page 51, there begins a record of a court proceeding,
deliberating what, exactly, the government is looking for in these
proceedings. They discuss the coverage that the FBI thinks its pen register
needs. Of note is that Levison was not opposed to the pen register (which, to
my understanding, would provide the FBI with all encrypted traffic going
through Lavabit's servers), he was opposed only to providing the encryption
keys, which Levison asserts would provide the FBI the ability to decrypt all
traffic, and not just the traffic of the aforementioned SUBJECT, (read:
probably Snowden).

The judge appears to not be a rubber-stamp entity, which is nice, as shown on
pages 58-59.

Page 60, Levison states that all the gov needed to do to install the pen
register, was set up an appointment with him. But, again, he would not provide
any keys.

Ha. On page 61, the court explicitly says that all requests for oversight and
monitoring will be denied:

    
    
        MR. LEVISON : I guess while I'm here in regards to the pen register,
            would it be possible to request some sort of external audit to
            ensure that your orders are followed to the letter in terms of
            the information collected and preserved?
        THE COURT : No. The law provides for those things, and any other
            additional or extra monitoring you might want or think is
            appropriate will be denied, if that's what you' re requesting.
    

On page 100, Levison states that he can manage to get the information the FBI
is looking for, without providing the FBI with Lavabit's encryption keys.
Someone (AUSA[censored]) says that the proposed solution does not satisfy the
subpoenas and court orders, because it would not provide real-time access to
the data.

On page 107-108, the court has this to say about a loss of trust from
Lavabit's customers, in the event that Lavabit hands over its SSL keys: "Any
resulting loss of customer "trust" is not an "unreasonable" burden"

Starting on page 121, there is a court discussion about "a motion to quash the
requirement of Lavabit to produce its encryption keys and the motion to unseal
and lift the nondisclosure requirements of Mr. Levison."

Page 126, the court on the government's "right to information". Within the
bounds of a criminal investigation, this position seems correct, but they are
still requesting a key that would decrypt the communications of about 400,000
customers. Within that context, it seems like overreach.

    
    
        THE COURT : I can understand why the system was set up, 
            but I think the government is -- government's clearly entitled 
            to the information that they're seeking, and just because 
            you-all have set up a system that makes that difficult, that 
            doesn't in any way lessen the government's right to receive that 
            information just as they would from any telephone company or any 
            other e-mail source that could provide it easily. Whether 
            it's -- in other words, the difficulty or the ease in obtaining 
            the information doesn't have anything to do with whether or not 
            the government's lawfully entitled to the information.
    

Man, read page 128 and 129. The judge basically says that because it's a
criminal case, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to the data they are requesting
(Lavabit's SSL key, which is very emphatically NOT Snowden's data (or, sorry,
THE SUBJECT's data)).

What appears to be the now infamous 11 page of 4-point key starts at page 145,
as Attachment A. I can't actually verify, from this PDF, that it is text. With
the image's resolution, it looks like lines of visual noise. Zooming in, there
also appear to be visual artifacts reminiscent of JPG compression.

~~~
twoodfin
Thanks for the summary; it's much appreciated.

None of this is shocking: If you run a commercial communications service, it's
your responsibility to comply with legitimate wiretap warrants. As the judge
said, setting up your system in such as way as to make tailored compliance
extremely difficult or impossible doesn't release you from that requirement.

~~~
trobertson
Yeah no prob. I'm particularly interested in Lavabit's story, because I'm
looking to get off of Gmail and get some degree of privacy. But with how this
is going, it looks like I'm going to have to wait for a non-USA company to
start a similar service (I'm broke and in the USA, so I'm not in a position to
start one myself).

~~~
twoodfin
Why do you think a company anywhere would have more luck than Lavabit when
presented with a legal search order?

~~~
trobertson
I think the US government is engaging in a massive overreach, and I think that
other countries have an opportunity to develop sane data protection laws.
Normally, when you want data on one person, you get a warrant for data on that
person. The US government, however, has decided that the rational move is to
demand indiscriminate access to the records and communications of over 400,000
Lavabit customers.

~~~
notdonspaulding
I skimmed these pages as well, and it seems obvious now that you can no longer
trust a _legal system_ to protect your privacy. We (hackers) need to combat
this with a _technical system_.

I would also note that it seems incredibly clear that Ladar Levison knew what
was at stake: for himself, for Snowden, for his company, and for his users.
His decision to shutter his doors was his last option to protect their 4th
amendment rights and I'm absolutely amazed he made the right call here.

Kudos to a brave man.

------
notdonspaulding
IANAL, so I don't know what the actual process is called, but that judge needs
to be fired.

When confronted with an issue about which the judge knows nothing, the court
basically deferred to whatever the government suggested. I'm not reading into
it, it's basically how the transcript reads.

I particularly enjoyed this Freudian slip:

    
    
        MR. BINNALL: I would suggest that the 
        government -- I 'm sorry -- that the Court
        can craft an order to say...
    

The court here is more marionette than anything else, with the FBI on the
strings.

------
darkarmani
> MR. TRUMP: That's one and the same, Your Honor. Just so the record is clear.
> We understand from Mr. Levison that the encryption keys were purchased
> commercially. They're not somehow custom crafted by Mr. Levison. He buys
> them from a vendor and then they're installed .

Wrong. You pay to have your public key signed by a commercial entity. The
private key was generated by Mr. Levison.

~~~
pilom
Later on the government submits an "Appendix B" which actually gets it right.
The lawyers for both sides made technical mistakes while in court.

------
epsylon
I find it incredibly ironic that in the process of investigating against
Snowden's leaks that the NSA is spying on netizens, we see such court orders
where feds ask for broad unregulated surveillance where a single targeted tap
would have sufficed. The worse is that the judge happily enables this.

------
frank_boyd
As a side note: Pretty ironic how he uses _Facebook, a NSA partner company_ ,
to publish such a statement.

~~~
marquis
Given that it's a public statement intended to be read by as many people as
possible I find it completely unironic.

~~~
morganw
But you're driving traffic to an NSA collaborator and open web breaker.

~~~
cheald
...and putting it where the eyeballs are.

He's not trying to protect this information. People are going to be using
Facebook regardless of whether he publishes there or not. This is pure
pragmatism.

------
Perseids
Is there some way I can donate money via Amazon payments? It would be vastly
more comfortable.

------
jlebrech
why not hand over all the keys and say you were hacked and get everyone to
change keys?

~~~
jmaygarden
Then they would ask for the keys again. If they thought you did it on purpose,
then it's another--probably much worse--contempt charge.

~~~
Confusion
Exactly. They don't need to prove you weren't hacked two or three times: they
just need to convince a judge that it's unlikely. And the next step, setting
up a regular key-changing scheme, simply results in you have to provide new
copies automatically every time the keys change.

------
orofino
Interestingly, the letter states he's received over 150k in support. The
rally.org campaign now states over 50k has been pledged. I'm not finding the
campaign for support to be terribly transparent.

When receiving the link to the rally.org campaign yesterday (through pinbord
on twitter or gruber) I thought it represented the entire universe of
assistance Lavar had received. On top of that, the upper limit of the rally
campaign keeps changing. Originally I saw 40k, then last nigth 50k, now this
morning 96k.

I'm not saying that they're trying to be misleading, but as someone who is
interested in this and is considering a donation, I was disquieted by the
moving target at rally.org and the lack of transparency until this morning
about how much had truly been raised.

~~~
acqq
It doesn't matter that you haven't seen some other figure on rally.org (just
_one_ of the sources). It doesn't change the fact that Levison will almost
certainly need the orders of magnitude more legal funds than what he received
up to now.

Even having a case with the copyright trolls costs around a million. You
bother about the thousands and about the _totals_ which nobody claimed. And
Levison had to shut down his own company.

~~~
orofino
Absolutely agree. All I'm trying to say is that I find the lack of
transparency about the real 'goal' for rally.org and real total (which now we
have transparency about) doesn't make me feel great about donating.

~~~
acqq
So where is it written that rally.org is supposed to publish the _totals of
funds collected via other channels_? Based on what actually have you expected
that?

~~~
orofino
It isn't. I think based on the giant bar saying X out of Y pledged that it
represented the largest chuck of what had been pledged.

------
thrillgore
"I'm not going to scramble jets to catch some hacker"

------
antocv
Here is a non-facebook link ssl link.

[https://ezcrypt.it/fl7n#RL16xMj9JWYSezVvk5FxnG68](https://ezcrypt.it/fl7n#RL16xMj9JWYSezVvk5FxnG68)

~~~
p4bl0
More readable (but not https) version here:
[http://pastie.org/private/v0wn72dm8nklqxlrjv8qpg](http://pastie.org/private/v0wn72dm8nklqxlrjv8qpg)

~~~
dutchbrit
Not sure why an SSL link would add any benefit in this situation anyway...

~~~
betterunix
It helps to make encryption the norm. Better to be using encryption in
situations where it is not needed than to fail to use it in situations where
it matters.

~~~
rmc
It will also help if some Treacherous Government complains that "You must have
been doing something bad, you used SSL!" and everyone can turn around and say
"But _loads_ of things are SSL!"

------
dingaling
_Lavabit was created so every law-abiding citizen has access to a secure and
private email service._

What an intriguing statement. I'm not sure if I should read anything into it,
but 'law-abiding' and 'citizen' seem odd in that context.

Edit: Why not just say 'everyone'? Otherwise it sounds as if Lavabit was
making a decision as to whether someone was eligible or not, which I don't
think is what he means.

~~~
kybernetikos
I think he said that because he was happy to work with reasonable law
enforcement requests for specific individuals that were part of a criminal
investigation.

It was just when they were asking for the ability to completely backdoor his
system for all users that he started with the civil disobedience.

------
deanclatworthy
Nothing unexpected from this announcement. It was heavily implied that he was
asked to provide the encryption keys to decrypt the communications of all
users.

I'm surprised that some academic lawyers aren't helping take on this case for
no cost, due to the precedent it may set and the exposure it will get.

~~~
acqq
Please don't diminish the importance of it. This release _is_ unprecedented.

For the first time in history the public can actually see the most of the
documents related to such kind of orders. See also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487986](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6487986)

~~~
hondje
Linking to yourself like that is incredibly tacky

~~~
acqq
Linking is there to avoid repeating the arguments written in much more detail
in the linked post. Is it better when everything is written twice instead in
one post? Linking also helps concentrating the relevant arguments to the
relevant thread. It's not to "myself" it's to the relevant node in the
discussion tree which contains a lot of arguments.

If there's anything written where you've found some error you can present your
arguments. Attacking persons aren't arguments.

