5 ms·
Probably, but it would still be a huge win, if we could make it so they could only get e-mails with a normal warrant, from a normal Court (none of that secret c
by devx 13y ago
Probably, but it would still be a huge win, if we could make it so they could only get e-mails with a normal warrant, from a normal Court (none of that secret courts/"millions of records-are-relevant nonsense).
Also, I don't know if it's currently "legal" or not to demand companies to keep encryption keys of what they're encrypting, but I'm pretty sure it's unconstitutional. So encrypting communications end to end should be constitutional/legal. The companies can still do that (if they have the will/customer pressure).
As for coerced backdoors, like they tried with Lavabit, that's just disgustingly immoral, and definitely unconstitutional.
- danielweber 13y ago> if we could make it so they could only get e-mails with a normal warrant, from a normal Court That is probably a legislative challenge, not a legal challenge. Is he setting up a PAC?
- dingaling 13y agoI agree it would be a monumental victory against secret demands, but if a non-sysadmin layman read that rally.org page he might believe that the result that all e-mails would be 'safe' forever. You make an interesting point about encryption keys; it is unconstitutional to demand that an individual hand-over his keys in a speculative manner, but is not considered self-incrimination if the prosecutor knows that the relevant document is encrypted. for example, if the individual boasts that 'The Man can't read my encrypted tax evasion plan'. But I have no idea how that reads-across to a corporation.
- ladar 13y agoThird parties like Lavabit can be forced to turn over user keys... which is why I encrypted a user's private key with the user's password.