On 2016-03-05, at 5:17 AM, John Young <j...@pipeline.com> wrote: > Lavabit's brief for Apple has the gutsiest skin in the game, going solo, > no joining a pack.
It is indeed the LavaBit case that terrifies me. And while I and other people who work of AgileBits made personal statements, there was no company response. In contrast, we did send out one Tweet about Apple/FBI. https://twitter.com/1Password/status/700059313599983616 (I wasn’t available to help with the wording of that, so yeah, I know that it actually isn’t about encryption. For what it is worth, that tweet went out well before the ... > […] the fattest of strutting corporate cats […] started defending Apple. Again, I wasn’t available for that decision making, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we were more “courageous" here than with LavaBit exactly because there is safety in standing with a big popular influential corporate giant than in making a strong public declaration about LavaBit. So as much as you might wish to condemn our selectiveness here, you should also look at this more positively. There was a lot of unexpressed horror about LavaBit that is now being expressed as the more convenient opportunity as come along. I also think that it is because of LavaBit that we have all been watching out for the next case. We lost one round, we certainly weren’t go let the next one go down without a fight. I think the Feds made a tactical error in picking on Apple at this time. They should have done more LavaBit-esque things against smaller entities to establish more cases. On the other hand, the “perfect” terrorism case fell in their laps, so they jumped on that one. Cheers, -j –- Jeffrey Goldberg Chief Defender Against the Dark Arts @ AgileBits
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
