Skip to main content

View Diary: Google: Want Privacy? Don't Use Gmail! (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There are many actually n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  Which do you like, if any? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:51:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only in a closed-network or with shared keys (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner

      Email, being inherently asynchronous by design, is meant for communication across multiple networks.  Unless you are only communicating within an encrypted domain or have shared encryption keys with everyone with whom you want to communicate "secure email" isn't secure.

      Everyone thinks these s00per-great services are some how immune to law enforcement.  Ask Eric Eoin Marques how secure "encrypted" Deep Web technology is.

      Who is Eric?  Eric is was the largest single purveyor of Child Porn in the world.  He used Lavabit and the TOR Network to hide is disgusting transactions thinking that his multiple levels of encryption kept him "off the grid".  This is a guy engaged in one of the most heavily monitored and prosecuted activities on the planet and used all of his money and tech-saavy to keep his illicit actions hidden from everyone, specifically the government.

      Guess where Eric is now.  If you said "Sitting in an Irish jail cell awaiting extradition to the US to face a long list of Child Pornography charges brought by the FBI." you would win a prize.  The FBI, using its own penetration technology and a lot leverage with warrants, got into everything the lil pervert owned.

      Also, as for Lavabit itself and its oh so purist "We had to close so as to not compromise our principles" or whatthefuckever, they were already answering warrants and subpoenas for Child Porn and turning over material.  It is a matter of court record that all information related to account Joey006@lavabit.com was handed over at the request of a lawful search warrant on June 10, 2013 in relation to a child pornography investigation.

      And that was a run-of-the-mill FBI investigation.  What do you think these companies are really going to do when its not just a drug or vice cop but special agents from Homeland Security or the CIA that show up with non-disclosure orders, FISA warrants, non-compliance threats and are tossing around words like "National Security" and "Terrorist Threat"?

      Email is not secure.  Ever.  Nor will it be.  Ever.

      Welcome to the Future.  Act accordingly.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:13:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a difference between answering warrants (3+ / 0-)

        and subpoenas for criminal investigations and allowing the government to have open season fishing through your users emails.  It pains me that i have to keep repeating this.  

        •  It pains me as well (0+ / 0-)

          I apologize that I keep forgetting which of the judge-signed court-ordered duly-presented jurisdictional warrants are supposed to be complied with by the named recipient and which of the judge-signed court-ordered duly-presented jurisdictional warrants are free to be ignored because they're bad 'n stuff.

          So when the Federal government knocks on the door of a business operating within its jurisdiction with a signed warrant issued under current law by a sitting judge from a court with direct jurisdiction do you start arguing the constitutionality right at the door-step or let them in first so they can make themselves comfortable while you helpfully point out the specific areas that the warrant clearly clashes with your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is therefore null and void?

          I've never been served one of these unamerican warrants before so I confess to not knowing the details of how these things work.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:08:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't get your point (0+ / 0-)

        you seem to think he should be more deferential to illegal requests than he was to legal requests?

        I want to see Snowden get a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the same sentence James Clapper gets for lying to Congress.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:52:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  define "illegal" (0+ / 0-)

          You mean the court approved FISA warrant issued under current law?  Those illegal ones?

          My point is that any SuperSecretEmail.com company is not going to get into a pissing match that they will not only lose but likely individually face criminal charges for even trying to win when Federal agents hit them with a valid warrant.

          Nor, for that matter, do I want any kind of system where the people that are being SERVED warrants can, or should even be expected to, decide for themselves that THIS kind of warrant is okay (like when the FBI is looking for child porn) but THAT kind of warrant (when the CIA is looking for terrorist communication) is unacceptable based on their own standards.

          Courts approve warrants.  Law enforcement executes them.  The end.  That's the law.  Don't like it?  Fine... change the law.  But nowhere is "yes that's the law but I disagree so therefore that warrant isn't legitimate" a valid argument for anything.

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the FISA court (0+ / 0-)

            has never been given jurisdiction over any communication not related to espionage or terrorism.

            Why are you so strict when it comes to puny criminals like terrorists, but so lax when it comes to big dangerous criminals like judges who sign unconstitutional orders?

            I want to see Snowden get a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the same sentence James Clapper gets for lying to Congress.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:41:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because (0+ / 0-)

              Terrorists break laws that are codified and on the books as passed by two houses of Congress and signed by a sitting president.

              The judges sign orders that meet the letter of established law are deemed "unconstitutional" by bloggers, talking heads and professional havers-of-opinions.

              When a court rules that FISA actions are unconstitutional and/or Congress amends the law then I would expect companies to act accordingly on the warrants they receive.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:53:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  There's a difference. (0+ / 0-)

        In the case you're describing, there was a legally executed search warrant that was specific to one user, limited in scope and entered into the public record.  The NSA program fails on all of these counts.  When agents of the law knock on your door (or kick it in) and hand you a warrant saying they can search your house and garage for explosives and bomb-making materials it's a whole different thing than them kicking in your door, along with all your neighbors' doors and the doors of anybody you might know and anybody they know and anybody they know looking for "you know... suspicious stuff".  Which is precisely what the feds can do with a FISA warrant.

        The problem is not the distinction between Google and Lavabit, it's the distinction between warrants that fall within the 4th Amendment and those that don't.

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:06:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So "recipients" of warrants (0+ / 0-)

          get to decide if they are the kind they want to obey or if they are the kind they get to decide it okay to ignore?

          Is that how it works?  I want to make sure I understand.

          If there is a warrant, duly presented, signed by a sitting judge can ANYONE get to decide "No.  I don't agree with how that court approves warrants." or "That judge was wrong to sign that one therefore I am entitled to refuse to comply."  Can you and I do that if we like or just companies like ISPs?  Does it work with arrest warrants or property seizures too or just search warrants?  Or just FISA search warrants?

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:02:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not what I mean (0+ / 0-)

            Lavabit was not immune from compliance with either warrant, but the one cited in the original comment was a reasonable one that nobody would have a complaint about.  That one was executed in the way that search warrants were intended in the Constitution.  FISA warrants go well beyond those constraints, and pretty much do away with the process.  There doesn't need to be probable cause demonstrated, just "suspicious stuff" and they don't need to specify what is being searched for.  they're basically a blanket permission to do whatever the hell you feel like just because suspicion.  Lavabit wouldn't be able to refuse to comply, other than to do what they did (which probably didn't stop that search from happening anyway, but there won't be any more, because there's nothing to search).

            If Google were served a "legal" warrant, nobody would say boo when they complied with it, because that's how the process is supposed to work.  And they tell you up front that if there's a legal subpoena, etc served they'll hand over your information to the authorities.  The outrage is in the abuse of the 4th Amendment, which falls on the government, not the ISP.  So getting outraged over the warrant served on Lavabit or using it as an example of government overreach doesn't hold, because it's NOT an overreach.

            Not sure I'm getting this from brain to text very effectively... must be the muscle relaxers or something.

            I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

            by mojo11 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:12:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site