If they were using PGP or any other third-party end to end encryption, Getting the SSL certificate wouldn't matter, because the content would still be encrypted.
what they wanted initially was known as a 'pen register', and amounted to giving the NSA access to monitor who a person was contacting/possible content monitoring. However, because that data stream being monitored is encrypted, the pen register told them nothing.
What they then attempted was to get the SSL certificate, which we have been told would have erased the security of the system and given the NSA full access to everyone's data. Given that a Proper PGP system wouldn't be affected by the compromise of the SSL certificate, given that the PGP public private key system is independent of SSL, It seems likely that the data was encrypted using SSL.
This has the advantage, as I pointed out elsewhere, that the user gets protection against man in the middle intercepts of his data but can still email non PGP users or PGP users with whom they had not yet shared public keys. You still want to be careful emailing said unprotected users, but the security of the communications 'in-transit' is significantly improved.
And it is clear from what we have been told that there was only one SSL certificate.
What you describe already exists. But it requires both sides to know each other and share public keys and have the software to work with it and because these keys are large data strings, you would have to store the key with the software, or likely in this case the lavabit servers, which likely undoes the security you are going for. Lavabit, by using SSL, encrypts all email sent out no matter the recipient and his setup or privacy concern, and only can be intercepted at the end point, but is still readable by the recipient. Secure communications without the enduser's normal problems setting up secure communications.
I think both the judge and the Techdirt authors are missing a key point to the whole process.
Mass data collection (which a subpeona for the SSL Certificate is) is justified by the Third Party Doctorine, namely that no data you give to a 'third party' has an expectation of privacy. However how can you have no expectation of privacy when the product that Lavabit sells is...privacy? Lavabit has a black box email, so it can't look at your communications data. That sounds like a situation where my communications are designed to remain private, because Lavabit can't even do any spam scanning or other 'intercept' of the communications data. If I used an encryption email, I would have an expectation of privacy with the encrypted data. So in what way can you justify a wiretap on every customer of Lavabit when privacy remains expected?
A bunch of anti-OOTB trolls claim you hate due process, your comment here proves this. MPAA has committed fraud because the initial finding do not support the claims made by the MPAA. Suing because I downloaded 'Dogtown' if I actually downloaded the soundtrack to 'Anastasia' is called fraud and will not win in a court of law, because I can not defend adequately defined myself.
"mislabeling" is something you can not do in a court of law.
Which only means you need a statute of limitations of having a third party appeal to revoke your deadness, or better yet, the only way to reverse a declaration of death is for you (or your doctor or a officer of the law if you can not travel for medical or legal reasons) to show up in court.
Right. The TSA has told us it needs to strip search toddlers because they might be carrying bombs. A child without ID or a boarding pass managed to walk right through the security which should have caught that he didn't have a boarding pass.
I agree with you its not perfect and we shouldn't judge...but wide-spread reports of corruption when combined with the failure of the TSA to respond to critizems of ineffective measures and examples of the ineffectiveness of those measures paints a larger picture of lots of money and time being spent doing very little.
Location Security is all about statistics. If you make entry to solid soft targets harder (ie. have a valid boarding pass, make the 'villian' wait while you check it), you increase the likelyhood of suspicious behavior (I know, broad identifiers, not valid, ect.) and reduce the likelyhood of an attack (barriers weed out most impulsive crimes). A security researcher proved you can generate a junk data ticket that will pass security. Its not and can't ever be fullproof. Instead we look at reducing the likelyhood of an attack, and this step follows a solid body of crime prevention, make the criminal think and he is often likely to not commit the crime.
Also, please remember that getting on the plane is not the only possible target in an airport.
And what they are looking for is that the ticket is 'valid', in that it is for the right day, the right area of the airport, for the person identified, ect. Not that the ticket is for a specific flight. Their is burden on the airline that the kid got on, but there is burden on the TSA as to how he made it to the 'secure area'.
Curious, you make a claim that "obama is unwilling to negotiate".
Obama has 'negotiated' the delay of the Affordable Care Act when it was attached to 'must pass' legislation several times. So now the Republican leadership, after failing to repeal the ACA through normal channels 42 times, first declared that they required the 'defunding' of the ACA, and then 'backed down' to a 'reasonable' stance of removing a tax to pay for the ACA, combined with spending another year to attempt to fully defund it.
By starting out outrageous and then 'backing down', you can get what you want and claim you 'negotiated' when in reality your real stance was the negotiated settlement. This is the republican strategy. Keep delaying the cost controlling benefits of the ACA and it's requirements all while telling people the ACA is raising your rates. Finally get enough support to repeal.
The Republican leadership is not negotiating in good faith. When Obama and the democrats have offered to consider amending sections of the ACA, Republicans have refused. Republicans have directly stated they hooked this to 'must pass' legislation so people who otherwise would say no would say yes. That is not negotiating. That is hanging sword of damocles over the american people and telling congress to do what the republicans want. Or else.
Actually, it is the TSA's job to ensure that everyone who goes through security has either a valid ticket, or a valid pass to escort someone with a valid ticket. The kid couldn't have gotten the latter at his age, so he had to have the former to get through security. And we are told he didn't.
If you don't have the credentials to either A) board a flight or B) escort someone who is boarding a flight you shouldn't be able to get into the terminal. thanks to the TSA, its assumed you should be in the concorse and so a child, moving close enough to an adult, might not be noticed, because we know they are supposed to be there.
Re: You are looking at this from an American point of view
A big problem is the word 'civil' offense varies depending on jurisdiction, but in most cases the examples you gave aren't civil offenses.
In most cases a law school will teach that civil offenses (Torts) are between private parties. Criminal Offenses are 'against the state'. Your taillight and speeding examples? That ticket you receive is actually you being arrested and then "released on your own recognizance", pending the court date on your ticket. Its just simpiler for minor traffic violations to not have to worry about the long arrest process and the costs to society far outweigh the benefits.
I have read a few places where misdemenors are refered to as civil offenses, but normally civil offenses refer to private parties (which lead to lawsuits) rather then criminal offenses which involve the cops.
By definition, breaking the law is a crime. an infraction is still a crime, it just isn't punishable by imprisonment.
Except that the 'one guy' that is the excuse for this isn't the real target. The real target is all of the rest of the information. Thats why the court order wasn't targeted. Because Snowden was just an excuse.
Except it actually isn't legally analogous. Aereokiller does things differently, not ensuring they hold to Cablevision. Moreover, fucknuttery on the part of Aerokiller's owner both hurts its case and suggsts the entire point is to set bad precident.
Oh, and Aerokiller lost in courts that disagree with cablevision. Specifically, Aero Lost in courts who believe that the Location of the DVR changes the legality of the offering. Given previous SCOTUS rulings, this is not likely to go well in the long run.
Oh, and the logic for overturning Remote DVRs also outlaws the slingbox, whose use fails to meet the standards for a 'public broadcast'.
I normally agree with you...but I think the concerning fact is the undisclosed 'user profiles'. I can't find details on what goes into creating them, and that data might be far more extensive then for the ads...which leads to potential NSA level capture and abuse potential. I hope the extensive examination on this both shows that google is on the up and up, and sets solid precedent on what constitutes interception.
This trial could be used to clarify the wire tap laws in ways that simply dismissing that wouldn't. This trial makes perfect sense from that perspective.
Re: I'm not sure the defense would agree with you just yet...
The judge feels that dismissing a case would be too severe a sanction at this time (read: it will get overturned on appeal). There isn't enough evidence of real fraud for such a sanction to stick. Fraud is only a small part of the troll playbook remember. Most of it is 100% legal, if morally iffy. And so it needs to go to Trial for a jury to see the iffy parts. If I am reading this ruling correctly, the merits of the motion itself is going to be directly considered by the jury:
The best you can hope for is that the jury's going to decide this; but for the jury to decide the sham nature of this closet in Texas, they're going to have to understand why somebody would want to do this. So an expert is somebody you need to have explain it. This is going to be part of your case.
As in, the judge has ruled that the sham nature of the holding company, as determined by a jury is reason enough to invalidate an assignment. He has allowed a Jury to decide He wants a jury deciding this so an appeal won't have an easy affect. What do I mean by that?
One of the biggest problems with the Wright ruling is that a Judge decided it, not a jury. By making a jury make the decision, it becomes incredibly difficult to appeal. Namely, Appeals courts normally assume that juries have made accurate statements of fact., and so Appeals are concered with application law. If a jury decides that the facts do not support a valid copyright assignment or that the facts show a pattern of imprudence and fraud, those finding are very hard to dismiss. The appeal can then only be argued over how the judge handles those rulings.
Re: Since I was censored in the prior item, I'll cross-post:
He has. He doesn't need to reiterate the CISPA is bad arguments ad nauseam....
I limit the Data I share with Facebook specifically because I do not agree with its data handling. I can't limit which data gets shared with the NSA. That is why CISPA is a problem, because now Google, Microsoft, and/or facebook Have no incentive to not share your information, As mike has already pointed out.
By unilaterally denying diplomats and presidents passage without a solid reason, the US is Trampling on the spirit on national soverignty. It might not be illegal by US law, but the UN might issue further sanctions against the US (we are already being sanctioned for bullying countries with our trade policies). And when the US ignores the NEW round of sanctions, The UN continues to lose any concept of credibility. As this happens those nations who already resent our bullying further ignore our laws, continue to violate our copyrights, and the nations who do not have the economic ties to us get more and more beligerent. Violating National Sovergnty and ignoring the value of international goodwill will lead to negative consequences