The story we've heard so far is that Lavabit had routinely complied with warrants and cooperated with targeted investigations against specific individuals. There are court records documenting at least some of these cases.
The details given here are beyond sketchy. Your characterization is hyperbolic and as far as I can see, unwarranted.
How is that different than previous warrants? How is that sketchy?
That warrant was different because it was for Edward Snowden.
Lavabit clearly feels he is a legitimate whistleblower. There is a reasonable argument that protecting a whistleblower from surveillance is morally valid (especially when his opposition to surveillance is the core of ).
Whether or not one thinks Lavabit should have done this probably depends on one's views on what Snowden did.
All would agree it comes at some point (insert references to morally repugnant dictatorships etc).
Even democratically elected governments cross the line (insert historical references to 1930's Europe).
Even "good" governments cross the line (insert reference to numerous examples of legal persecutions of minority groups in most democracies).
Sometimes civil disobedience is a the morally correct thing to do. Was it in this case? Personally, I'm not sure either way.
While I agree 100% that Lavabit's actions were unlawful, just saying "there are rules" isn't enough to convince me that those same actions were "wrong".
I'm glad we can agree that Lavabit's action were unlawful... but please don't quote me out of context. "There are rules" was with regard to there being certain rules that need to be followed in order to qualify as a legitimate whistleblower. If you would like to argue that those rules need not be followed then I'll respectfully decline.
And we can all see what is normal in the US today.
Yeah, that didn't play out so cleanly for Thomas Drake.
Not everyone completely lacks conviction and ideals, you know.
I just don't think it's right to call Levison rude names and all but convict him on these vague reports.
Why do you think that makes it a bad idea to call him a hero? Far from being a reason not to appreciate him, it seems to me that what you describe is the very action that people are describing as heroic.
Second, a critical point in arguing against warrantless surveillance is that there are legitimate legal channels through which to get the necessary information when it's really needed and that those same channels make the NSA's conduct completely and totally illegal. Failing to abide by those mechanisms makes it hard to make that argument.
It's like having the EFF sticker that says "come back with a warrant" and then a "Fuck the police" sticker next to it.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but feel free to consider me among those who consider the later to be heroic. He stuck his neck out for people that he doesn't know, but for whom he feels an obligation to protect. He gave up his business to do it.
Legalities never play a role in my considerations of heroism (except in cases where something being illegal actually serves to make it more heroic, due to the personal sacrifice that typically implies).
Suppose Lavabit was a bank who got a court order to hand over the contents of a safety deposit box belonging to Snowden and refuses. The FBI demands Lavabit now open the safe that contains all the safety deposit boxs so they can go throw and find Snowden's box and open it. <Edit> and you just have to "trust" them they won't open everything</edit>. This is roughly what happened.
Lavabit is basically claiming that the FBI started out with the break open everything tactic. They are, if the article is true, lying.
If the data is being acquired under EO 12333, they don't have to report anything to the FISC nor Congress. Where do you see "serious" oversight occurring?
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/10/02/james-clapper-proves-in...
It would be the equivalent of opening ALL the safety deposit boxes.
Using a hammer to thread a needle
> IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3123, that a pet/trap device may be installed and used by Lavabit and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to capture all non-content dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information (as described and limited in the Application), sent from or sent to the SUBJECT ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, to record the date and time of the initiation and receipt of such transmissions, to record the duration of the transmissions, and to record user log-in data (date, time, duration, and Internet Protocol address of all log-ins) on the SUBJECT, ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCOUNT, all for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of such Order or the date the monitoring equipment becomes operational, whichever occurs later;