
USA v Lavabit LLC Email Account of Joey006 - zabuni
http://cryptome.org/2013/08/joey006/usa-v-joey006.htm
======
andrewcooke
posting at the top level for visibility.

this appears to be an earlier, known case where lavabit complied. it does not
seem to be the case that caused the shutdown.

see for example [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/lavabit-
snowden/](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/lavabit-snowden/) :

 _Court records show that, in June, Lavabit complied with a routine search
warrant targeting a child pornography suspect in a federal case in Maryland.
That suggests that Levison isn’t a privacy absolutist. Whatever compelled him
to shut down now must have been exceptional._

~~~
revelation
The timeline doesn't fit, anyway:

 _As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six
weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests._

------
MWil
[http://ia600900.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.246...](http://ia600900.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.246283/gov.uscourts.mdd.246283.3.0.pdf)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Thanks! As someone who has a PACER account and uses RECAP to upload case files
to the Internet Archive, I'm always appreciative when someone is out there
using the IA stored copies.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Docket @ the IA:
[http://ia800908.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.2362...](http://ia800908.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.236204/gov.uscourts.mdd.236204.docket.html)
(has SHA hashes, as well as IA links to the docs)

------
kintamanimatt
What is the significance of this post? It has no context or explanation and
I'm at a loss as to what this is about, or why it is significant. It's akin to
a magic number in a script; without at least a brief comment it's all but
meaningless!

~~~
testing12341234
"Lavabit abruptly shuts down" [0]

The original poster believes that this case is apparently the reason for
Lavabit shutting down. The issue as hand is that a proper search warrant has
been issued for the email address in the title. Lavabit appears to have chosen
to shut down rather than respond to the search warrant (or has responded to
the search warrant, but chosen to shut down rather than have it happen again)

[0] - [http://lavabit.com/](http://lavabit.com/)

~~~
betterunix
The warrant shown on Cryptome is from an earlier case in which Lavabit
complied. Lavabit has received something much different in this current case,
which is what led to the shut down.

~~~
testing12341234
Indeed. I missed the section where it showed that the warrant was executed,
and "One Memorex DVD" was retrieved.

------
mcescalante
For anyone curious why it is entered as "filed 4/11/13" but executed on
"3/28/13" (weeks before the filing), it appears as though it was served on
3/28/13 and the clerk filed & entered it to the system on 4/11/13.

Even though this may be clear to some, it sounds a bit misleading to me and at
first I thought they were just doing a poor job of backdating stuff they
hadn't done properly.

------
Karunamon
Question: If Lavabit was operating in the way they say they did (i.e. zero-
knowledge encryption), how could this warrant be complied with? Dump their
encrypted maildir to a disc?

~~~
revelation
All the report says they handed over is an unmarked DVD. Maybe all it contains
is encrypted data.

------
glitch003
How is the defendant an email account and not a person or party of some kind?

~~~
testing12341234
"The form of the styling of this case — the defendant being an object, rather
than a legal person — is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over
objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case.
In current US legal practice, in rem is most widely used in the area of asset
forfeiture, frequently in relation to controlled substances offenses. In rem
forfeiture cases allow property (in this case, $124,700 in cash) to be
directly sued by and forfeited to the government, without either just
compensation or the possessor (and presumptive owner) being convicted of a
crime."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency)

~~~
_delirium
A famous one in first-amendment law (and in literature) is _United States v.
One Book Called Ulysses_ (1933). Gives it a rather evocative feel, setting up
an image of the U.S. government and the book itself battling it out.

There are also some unkind jokes about the state of Kansas derived from the
title _Quantity of Books v. Kansas_ (1964).

------
dowskitest
Amidst all the recent fervor surrounding law enforcement and privacy, I think
the documents at the linked site are a good reminder that there are people in
law enforcement working to protect the innocent.

