How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company
newyorker.com"If Lavabit lost its appeal to the F.I.S.C.R., and still refused to coöperate, it would run a serious risk of being found in contempt; that’s how most courts punish those who disobey its orders. The FISA court is no different. According to the court’s rules of procedure, a party may be held in contempt for defying its orders. The secret court may consider many punishments—secret fines for each day of noncompliance, or even secret jail time for executives. The idea behind civil contempt is that “you hold the key to your own cell.” If you comply, the punishment stops. But hold out long enough and your contempt may be criminal, and your compliance will not end the jail sentence or displace the fine."
Any claims the FISA court is not a real court fail hard if the above is correct. Which is pretty much has to be for the current system to work.
Secret courts
extraordinary rendition
waterboarding
indefinite detention in a location beyond the reach of the judicial system
shoot to kill via drone
spying on the populace on a scale that the stasi could only dream of.
Spying on allies as well as enemies
What kind of a regime is that?
USA -> USSR. US govt has decided to follow practices of USSR govt as it considers them to be much more superior than the former USA govt practices.
I believe waterboarding, unlike skateboarding, is now illegal again.
It might still be secretly legal, though.
out of control
things seem to become interesting more and more, i mean the secret fines and secret jail time. The former i guess accounted and reported to [secret department of] SEC on secret 10K forms, while later suggests the following interpretation for this new brave world of the old Russian joke: "A CEO tells to his wife that his is going on a vacation with a mistress, and he tells his mistress that he is going on a vacation with the wife, while he is going to serve secret sentence in a jail".
Secret fines, secret proceedings, secret prison time. I wonder if the charges and evidence against you are also secret and only the court knows not the defendent.
> I wonder if the charges and evidence against you are also secret and only the court knows not the defendent.
I don't know about the USA, but the UK government recently passed a law stating exactly that.
And they want to abolish the Human Rights Act. I can't think why.
I followed the citation for "secret jail time". Fortunately, at least for that allegation, it appears to be speculation in another article [1].
[1]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
There were two links - http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-la...
While I agree that the rights of the prisoner in the case you link to appear to be excessively curtailed , he was not "secretly imprisoned".
Secret imprisonment would be a clear indication of totalitarianism, but doesn't, as far as we know, appear to be happening on US soil.
For heaven's sake, if Guantanamo isn't a clear indicator to you, I doubt that secret imprisonment, when it comes or when it's proved to you, will be taken as a clear indicator either.
The people in Guantanamo are known to be there... albeit some of them shouldn't be.
Now they're known to be there. But there were secret prisons in other countries where captives were held that were only revealed later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_prison#Official_recogni...
Paging rayiner:
You keep saying FISC "is not a real court" and is some kind of optional decoration on top of powers the executive branch already has.
So, which is it? Does FISC have judicial branch powers? Or do these penalties amount to administrative detention in judicial branch drag?
I don't follow. Are you arguing that the FISA court is a real court, because it shares certain characteristics with other courts?
The only way I can imagine secret jail time working is by publicly charging that person with a crime they didn't commit to cover up the actual reason. This is similar to what is alleged with the CEO of Qwest, who would not cooperate with the NSA and was then charged with insider trading and is still in prison.
However, what possible reason would the person have to remain silent about the real reason they're in prison once they're already in prison?
"However, what possible reason would the person have to remain silent about the real reason they're in prison once they're already in prison"
Look at Qwest CEO Nacchio's case. He claimed exactly that, see e.g. http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/jailed-qwest-ceo-claimed-t... and what happened?
He's jailed for 6 years, I'm sure most people believe it's because he's eeevil capitalist scum, and whatever the truth, everyone else in his position has to take it as likely they'd suffer the same fate.
Now that this seems to have turned a corner it might play out differently, but "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
"However, what possible reason would the person have to remain silent about the real reason they're in prison once they're already in prison?"
Probably threats against family members and threats of increased jail time.
Also re secret jail time: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-la...
>allows the BOP to monitor client-attorney communications.
here goes another one down the drain.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, --THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, LAYING ITS FOUNDATION ON SUCH PRINCIPLES AND ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
(emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...
Do yourself a favor and take a few minutes to read the full document. Now, if you really care, play with it a little, modify the Indictment to reflect current events and relevant grievances.
Frankly, it scares me. This is a 237 year old document that feels like we might consider writing it almost verbatim today. I have to say that I have never lived in fear of what my country might become. Now, with the actions of this and the prior administration I really don't know what to think. Obama and his regime have accelerated our descent into something indistinguishable from what I remember as the country I genuinely love with the deepest corners of my heart and mind. It really saddens me to the core in a manner that is hard to express with words.
This is now the domain of tears, not words.
Who's fault it this? It's that of the political fundamentalists. Those among us who choose not to think critically and, instead, vote like sheep, year after year, always supporting their ridiculous parties, Democrats and Republicans either out of self-interest or ignorance. This is on you and nobody else.
You ought to be ashamed. All of you. You bunch of assholes. You now have a front seat from which to enjoy the destruction of our Nation from the inside out. This is almost like a slow motion train wreck happening right in front of our collective eyes. Will you do anything to help fix it or will you sit quietly watching the train wreck? Will you break ranks and vote the morons out of office in a united show of political force by the people and for the people. Will you hold all those you supported accountable for their lies and actions? You probably wont. You will probably continue to vote like sheep, supporting your petty fucking causes, missing the forest for the trees.
Fucking cowards.
We need to realize that the wrong people are not in charge. Rather, the system is broken. If you put new people in charge the system will return to this state and continue its decay. It persists solely because people do not have a credible alternative to the system. People may hate the system, but they hate every other form of government they know more. Are we suppose to institute a monarchy? Americans would never go for it.
We need to offer a competing vision to present-day America, which is an increasingly totalitarian bureaucratic state with some vestigial democratic pageantry.
GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
The majority do not care, as they believe that they have nothing to hide. They do not realize that this will strike at our very core of being human.
Would I be comfortable talking with my friend in person at my home when I know that our XBOX One, Phones, Google Glasses are all 'listening' to us.
And something I tell my friend in a private conversation might send me to prison ?
This quote changes the meaning. It says that to secure inalienable rights, governments are instituted among men and to do that those governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is not consent of the governed in the sense of everything should be decided by voting. According to this document government exists to secure basic rights. The people who wrote this were wary of democracy. They certainly didn't believe that it solved the problems of tyranny. Another man once wrote: 'There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary…it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary.'
Then realize it was written by a bunch of Aristocratic slave-holding white men, who implicitly meant for the document to apply only to people like themselves.
What the traditionally disenfranchised are thinking is: welcome to the fucking club.
Does that invalidate the arguments put forth in the document? Did it not result in greater freedom for all and eventually lead to massive prosperity?
It definitely inspired people to resolve its core hypocrisy, which led to positive effects.
How do you ever learn anything from history believing in such tired Marxist bullshit?
2+2=4 even if you are one of those awful people with the misfortune to be born white.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
> It's that of the political fundamentalists
"Fundamentalists" is an awfully odd word to use there. The problem is the people who don't stick to their ideals, but let their views be mediated by the talking heads of their social class. They angrily dissent when their team is not in power, becoming wary of government and having seemingly independent thoughts. But when election time comes, they fall right into line supporting their team's status quo, because they've been told that the alternative is horrible and scary. And when their team wins, they relax and start approving of the government because their chosen propaganda has switched emphasis to telling that everything is alright.
It's a remarkably elegant setup for converting widespread discontent into tacit support.
The problem is the two party system which exists because we have single member districts rather than proportional representation. It's a race to the center, and we all lose.
I'd like to add this for why the current political system in the US is fucked up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
I'd say that all this gov secrecy is right in the basis of the USA, from its start. Just remember that almost all founding fathers were members of the free masonry secret society.
-- Oh, he is on conspiracy theory now! Let's ignore him.
How is Mega not all over this?
I feel like this would be Kim Dot Com's favorite thing in the world to do (sticking his finger in America's legal eye). Why haven't they rolled out a privacy focused email service. Their tagline is the "the privacy company."
This now gives an edge to all the big internet companies that offer messaging services that aren't based on email.
Completely aside from the main point, but I am curious as to why the New Yorker chose to use umlauts for all of the instances of the word: "coöperate." It's a latin word so I wouldn't expect to see that.
I wonder if it is a rendering trick or something intentional for tracking.
It's called a diaeresis. It marks the start of a new syllable. They have an article discussing its history at the magazine.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/04/the-cu...
Ah thanks! Never knew about that.
That isn't an umlaut: it is a diaeresis.
Completing the thought: a diæresis indicates that a second instance of a vowel is to be pronounced distinctly.
It's co-operate, not "coop-erate". Also sometimes in dissimilar vowels as naïve, or in a finial vowel as in Brontë. The practice is older and more formal, but still correct.
> I wonder if it is a rendering trick or something intentional for tracking.
How do you mean?
Didn't Lavabit shutdown voluntarily?
In self-defense, and the pre-emptive defense of others