Naive question from an ignorant amateur: What are the legal implications if service providers using any surveil-able channel offer terms of service stating they will: Terminate service provision prior to release of a user's information to a third party in instances where prior notice of intended release has not been made.
I don't understand enough of the law to determine whether or not the series of cases referenced below represents a new legal precedent or something else. I.e. Given the commercial implications of many communications facilitated services, could economic considerations create legal standing of comparable relevance to the security considerations? If a commercial entity complies with state coercion, in conflict with their commercial obligations that they have explicitly rather than implicitly made, who arbitrates the spread of loss & risk across actors? Thanks for your thoughts! Zack ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *grarpamp* Date: Monday, October 21, 2013 Subject: CryptoSeal shutters, ala: LavaBit To: [email protected] Voluntary shutdown beforehand... https://privacy.cryptoseal.com/ http://cryptoseal.com/team/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585649 http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/cryptoseal-vpn-shuts-down-rather-than-risk-nsa-demands-for-crypto-keys/ http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/10/21/2157225/cryptoseal-shuts-down-consumer-vpn-service-to-avoid-fighting-nsa -- *ZACK BRISSON* *Principal, Reboot* 45 E 20th St, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003 o: +1 212 388 1010 | m: +1 704 281 5322 Nigeria: +234 (0)703 655 0687 [email protected] theReboot.org <http://www.thereboot.org/>
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
