老澳门开奖结果

Late last night, the 老澳门开奖结果 and 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia filed an amicus brief urging a federal appeals court to overturn a contempt-of-court finding against Lavabit, the now-defunct secure email service provider. The company had been resisting a court order to hand over the private encryption keys relied on by the company鈥檚 400,000 users to keep their information secure. (You can read our brief here, filed with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.).

In the case, law enforcement agents conducting a criminal investigation of one of Lavabit鈥檚 customers (widely believed to be Edward Snowden) demanded that the company turn over its private encryption keys so that the government could monitor information associated with the suspect鈥檚 communications. Lavabit balked at the demand, pointing out that the keys protected all of the company鈥檚 customers, not just the target of the government鈥檚 investigation. But when the district court held Lavabit in contempt for refusing to give up its encryption keys and imposed a $5,000-a-day fine until the company complied, Lavabit had no choice but to turn the keys over to the government. The company鈥檚 founder, Ladar Levison, the company shortly thereafter, believing that Lavabit could not hold itself out as operating a secure email service after its private keys had been divulged. The company is now appealing the contempt finding. (You can read Lavabit鈥檚 brief ).

As we wrote in our brief, quoting a Supreme Court ruling:

The district court鈥檚 contempt holding should be reversed because the underlying orders requiring Lavabit to disclose its private keys imposed an unreasonable burden on the company. Although innocent third parties have a duty to assist law enforcement agents in their investigations, they also have a right not to be compelled 鈥渢o render assistance without limitation regardless of the burden involved.鈥� Balancing these interests, the Supreme Court has held that the courts may not impose unreasonable burdens in ordering third parties to assist in government investigations.

The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption technology Lavabit used to protect its communications wasn鈥檛 anything exotic. In fact, it鈥檚 built into every web browser and used by a large number of popular websites, from Google to American Express, to protect users鈥� sensitive information from cyber security threats. The technology is very effective, which is why it鈥檚 become the industry-standard 鈥� but it depends on companies鈥� ability to keep their private encryption keys secret.

As a society, we have a strong interest in encouraging the companies that handle our private information to prioritize cybersecurity, as Lavabit did over its ten years in business. The government destroyed that business when it ordered Lavabit to betray the trust of its 400,000 users by divulging the encryption keys used to protect their information. Although Lavabit offered to help the government obtain the information it needed about the one suspect without divulging the private encryption keys for everyone, the government refused the company鈥檚 proposed accommodation.

When the court ordered Lavabit to turn over its private encryption keys, it undermined the businesses and technologies we rely on to keep our information safe. Although the government undoubtedly has a legitimate interest in obtaining necessary assistance for its criminal investigations, there are limits on its power to dragoon innocent parties into its surveillance activities. In this case, the government exceeded those limits.

We hope the appeals court recognizes that the government overreached in its demand for Lavabit鈥檚 encryption keys and clears the company of its contempt 鈥� making it easier for other companies to fight such demands in the future.