Every rule & regulation creates winners and losers.
We want the legislature to pass laws that create net positive effects - the benefits should be larger than the costs.
Some laws spread costs and benefits pretty evenly - no compensation is needed for those. But others concentrate costs on a few, for the benefit of the public at large. In those cases compensation for the losers seems only fair.
If you can't afford to pay the compensation, that's a sign that you've got a bad law - the benefits are supposed to be bigger than the costs.
The result here is a shame, but I don't blame the court too much. Lavabit screwed up big time.
Anyone running a service whose operation is likely to frustrate the authorities (even if that's not the intent, and legal and legitimate as it may be) needs to have good legal help a single phone call away from day 1.
If you don't have that, you're not serious about it.
Agreed. It's odd. Somehow the very words "Nazi" and "Hitler" have become almost unique synonyms for pure evil.
Godwin's Law has formalized this - the moment "Nazi" is mentioned in any discussion, rational debate stops and you're in the territory of moral absolutes.
For example, we can't complain about "Gestapo" tactics of the NSA - we have to call them "Stasi" tactics. Because NO MATTER WHAT THE REALITY, it can't possibly be as bad as the Nazis. By definition.
Not that Nazis weren't evil - they were every bit as horrible as their reputation.
But why are they perceived as uniquely horrible? What about Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler, or any number of historical conquerors who routinely murdered every single man, woman, and child in a captured city?
The Nazis were indeed evil, but the only thing unusual about their evil was how efficient they were at it and their proximity to the center of Western culture.
I can't think of another defeated enemy that has become so demonized.