If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   Groklaw is the latest victim of the "war" on "terror"   (yro.slashdot.org) divider line 115
    More: Sad, Groklaw, bank fraud, sourceforge  
•       •       •

8543 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 5:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-20 04:03:28 PM  
That is the most deluded reasoning I've ever heard. I suspect the owner is schizophrenic.

The govt listening to emails means she can no longer have a public message board? wtf?

Also, I love how she's leaving the internet and never coming back. I just hope she can find the yellowpages and find a psychiatrist.
 
2013-08-20 04:08:59 PM  
Victim in quotes is appropriate, as the author seems to be victimizing herself.
 
2013-08-20 05:53:35 PM  
What a ridiculous overreaction.
 
2013-08-20 05:54:12 PM  
commencementwriters.com
 
2013-08-20 05:55:29 PM  
Groklaw threatening to shut down is like The Cure threatening to stop touring; we've heard this all before.
 
2013-08-20 05:56:11 PM  
Now I've heard of Groklaw, so it worked!
 
2013-08-20 05:57:18 PM  
I'm sure those fighting in Afghanistan woyluld be interested to know there's no actual war going on, submittard.
 
2013-08-20 05:58:23 PM  
I think we'll see more of this as people without the resources to push back post warrantless demand for info and sources chills the market for unpopular speech and communications. In this case groklaw may have been involved with investigating improper seizure of assets and collaborated with unpopular sources which now they would draw attention to themselves which they couldn't resist.

Yes it's a bit draconian but for a legal site it could get ugly.

Maybe this means legal service offices will move offshore to protect themselves.
 
2013-08-20 05:58:41 PM  
So if WIkileaks spies on someone it's OK, but if the Government spies on you it's not?

/Devil's Advocate
 
2013-08-20 05:58:51 PM  
The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause). The judicial concept of "Substantive Due Process," holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is intended to protect all unenumerated rights considered fundamental and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," among these the right to privacy

/and they had to know, some jackass in the future would say "Well, if you dont SEE the right to privacy enumerated in the constitution, it must not exist." Just because a certain right isn't specifically mentioned doesn't mean it does not live in the message that our forefathers were trying to lay down.
 
2013-08-20 05:59:21 PM  
I'm with PJ.    Been a Groklaw follower since her Boobies.  Thank you for everything, PJ!  Put this nonsense behind you and enjoy that red dress.
 
2013-08-20 06:00:41 PM  
Oh no, the NSA is reading my Email? Now they're going to find out I'd like to grow my penis 3 inches overnight and find bored housewives in my area.
 
2013-08-20 06:00:54 PM  

DiarrheaVanFrank: I'm with PJ.    Been a Groklaw follower since her Boobies.  Thank you for everything, PJ!  Put this nonsense behind you and enjoy that red dress.


Sigh.  Her Boobies are not the issue, dude.  I fail.
 
2013-08-20 06:02:02 PM  
I see nobody in the comments so far understands what a "chilling effect" on free speech is. When you know your emails are monitored and there is a chanc you will be stopped and put in detention (even without charges), you get really paranoid. Especially when there is a real threat of being mistreated in detention, which now exists (even if they don't go Guantanamo on you, they can treat you like Bradley Manning).

The secret police, NSA, stazi, or whatever don't have to arrest you to shut you up. The threat of being stopped is enough.

Glen Greenwald's partner was stopped going between Europe and the US and his belongings "confiscated" (read: stolen). Though he was released, there's your precedent. We aren't becoming a police state, we're there.
 
2013-08-20 06:02:40 PM  

abfalter: What a ridiculous overreaction.


This.

Also, apparently there's no longer a difference between "direct victim of NSA spying" that the headline suggests and "shut down out of protest because their preferred secure email service was pressured into shutting down by the government" that the actual article says down in the details.
 
2013-08-20 06:02:53 PM  
Why would anyone leave the internet?  You would never get to witness peoples' breakdowns broadcast for the world to enjoy.
 
2013-08-20 06:03:04 PM  
Best quote from Slashdot:

1) It's HER site. If she does not want to continue, for whatever reason, it's HER choice. Disagree with her? Create your own Groklaw.
2) Especially given the Lavabit precedent, I can understand her decision.
Remember: you may be secretly ordered to spy on your own users, and secretly prevented to even mention this to anyone - including your own lawyers - and threatened with criminal prosecution if you decide to do right thing and shut everything down. Big Brother wants to be able to watch you. All the time.
As for being a ''gutless coward'' (your words, not mine), try running a high-traffic, high-visibility web site for a while, with all the attendant legal problems and shenanigans (see above), and we will talk about it for while, mmmmmkay?
 
2013-08-20 06:03:10 PM  

Fireproof: I'm sure those fighting in Afghanistan woyluld be interested to know there's no actual war going on, submittard.


In the Venn diagram of The War on Terror and the war in Afghanistan, the second would be a small circle within a much larger one representing the first.
 
2013-08-20 06:05:50 PM  
You misheard - it's actually the War on Terra.
 
2013-08-20 06:08:05 PM  
Phil Fish ran Groklaw?
 
2013-08-20 06:08:21 PM  
You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer.  The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-under-gag -o rder-speaks-out-about-shut-down-decision/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130816/14533924213/feds-threaten- to -arrest-lavabit-founder-shutting-down-his-service.shtml
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57597726-38/silent-circle-follows- la vabit-in-shuttering-encrypted-e-mail/

My guess is that the feds have some interest in some of groklaw's stories.  Given the types of big $$$ legal cases that they've covered, often with apparent insider knowledge, that's not to surprising.  Somebody somewhere found a "terrorism" connection, and groklaw gets an NSL to spill the beans on their sources or users.  They decided they'd rather go away then comply.  But they can't/won't tell you that, because they'd risk prison (which the lavabit guy is doing).
 
2013-08-20 06:09:54 PM  

NutWrench: Best quote from Slashdot:

1) It's HER site. If she does not want to continue, for whatever reason, it's HER choice. Disagree with her? Create your own Groklaw.
2) Especially given the Lavabit precedent, I can understand her decision.
Remember: you may be secretly ordered to spy on your own users, and secretly prevented to even mention this to anyone - including your own lawyers - and threatened with criminal prosecution if you decide to do right thing and shut everything down. Big Brother wants to be able to watch you. All the time.
As for being a ''gutless coward'' (your words, not mine), try running a high-traffic, high-visibility web site for a while, with all the attendant legal problems and shenanigans (see above), and we will talk about it for while, mmmmmkay?


Gonna need a citation on that second one. Never heard of anything smaller than a telecom company being forced to spy on anyone, and even then it was just "turn over records."
 
2013-08-20 06:10:35 PM  

DiarrheaVanFrank: I'm with PJ.    Been a Groklaw follower since her Boobies.  Thank you for everything, PJ!  Put this nonsense behind you and enjoy that red dress.


This. Thanks for fighting the good fight, Pamela.

/screw Darl McBride
 
2013-08-20 06:12:15 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer. The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.


Can't discuss with their lawyer? No.
 
2013-08-20 06:17:12 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer. The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

Can't discuss with their lawyer? No.


The Lavabit founder said something about that in the first link provided by Laberts above.

Whether he's telling the truth on that one or not is unclear.
 
jvl
2013-08-20 06:18:41 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: My guess is that the feds have some interest in some of groklaw's stories


Guess again. PJ has always been a touch paranoid. She once implied that SCO might try to kill her.

She'll be back.
 
2013-08-20 06:21:30 PM  

Fireproof: The Lavabit founder said something about that in the first link provided by Laberts above.

Whether he's telling the truth on that one or not is unclear.


Ummm. no. Someone must have been mistaken or made something up. See there's this thing about due process and being able to have a lawyer. For example, what happens if a publicly traded company gets served? Do they have tell every shareholder or JUST the CEO? If lawyers are forbidden from being part of the process... what if the owner/CEO/Shareholders are lawyers? Do you see how ridiculous all that would be? Someone is just making sh*t up.

As a side-note, you could tell your lawyer whatever tf you wanted. Attorney client privilege and all that.
 
2013-08-20 06:22:31 PM  

jvl: Lamberts Ho Man: My guess is that the feds have some interest in some of groklaw's stories

Guess again. PJ has always been a touch paranoid. She once implied that SCO might try to kill her.

She'll be back.


She should probably lay off the meth and get some Thorazine.
 
2013-08-20 06:23:08 PM  

ReapTheChaos: Oh no, the NSA is reading my Email? Now they're going to find out I'd like to grow my penis 3 inches overnight and find bored housewives in my area.


Tell me more about these bored housewives.
 
2013-08-20 06:23:12 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer.  The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-under-gag -o rder-speaks-out-about-shut-down-decision/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130816/14533924213/feds-threaten- to -arrest-lavabit-founder-shutting-down-his-service.shtml
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57597726-38/silent-circle-follows- la vabit-in-shuttering-encrypted-e-mail/

My guess is that the feds have some interest in some of groklaw's stories.  Given the types of big $$$ legal cases that they've covered, often with apparent insider knowledge, that's not to surprising.  Somebody somewhere found a "terrorism" connection, and groklaw gets an NSL to spill the beans on their sources or users.  They decided they'd rather go away then comply.  But they can't/won't tell you that, because they'd risk prison (which the lavabit guy is doing).


Possibly. The official story is that Groklaw is shutting down because they simply can't get by without the secrecy for themselves and their sources provided by Lavabit. I'd feel pretty damn exposed without it myself, if I were in their position.

I'd guess there is no "terrorism connection" or anything for Groklaw; They just don't feel safe from the Feds without encrypted email.
 
2013-08-20 06:23:17 PM  

Metaluna Mutant: You misheard - it's actually the War on Terra.


In that case, we are winning quite handily.
 
2013-08-20 06:23:17 PM  
This might alarm me if I knew WTF Groklaw was.
 
2013-08-20 06:24:12 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer. The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

Can't discuss with their lawyer? No.


https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
"Recipients of NSLs are subject to a gag order that forbids them from ever revealing the letters' existence to their coworkers to their friends or even to their family members much less the public."

I'm sure I've seen a story describing the recipient of an NSL as being instructed that they couldn't bring it to the attention of their company legal department - but I can't find it now, so I'll rescind the bit about lawyers.

These things aren't all that rare - hundreds of thousands of NSLs have been issued.
 
2013-08-20 06:24:46 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: jvl: Lamberts Ho Man: My guess is that the feds have some interest in some of groklaw's stories

Guess again. PJ has always been a touch paranoid. She once implied that SCO might try to kill her.

She'll be back.

She should probably lay off the meth and get some Thorazine.


katherinegscott.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-20 06:27:12 PM  
Fascismsezwut?
 
2013-08-20 06:27:53 PM  

Fireproof: NutWrench: Best quote from Slashdot:

1) It's HER site. If she does not want to continue, for whatever reason, it's HER choice. Disagree with her? Create your own Groklaw.
2) Especially given the Lavabit precedent, I can understand her decision.
Remember: you may be secretly ordered to spy on your own users, and secretly prevented to even mention this to anyone - including your own lawyers - and threatened with criminal prosecution if you decide to do right thing and shut everything down. Big Brother wants to be able to watch you. All the time.
As for being a ''gutless coward'' (your words, not mine), try running a high-traffic, high-visibility web site for a while, with all the attendant legal problems and shenanigans (see above), and we will talk about it for while, mmmmmkay?

Gonna need a citation on that second one. Never heard of anything smaller than a telecom company being forced to spy on anyone, and even then it was just "turn over records."


Try picking up a newspaper every once in a while.
 
2013-08-20 06:28:26 PM  
adamatari:

Glen Greenwald's partner was stopped going between Europe and the US and his belongings "confiscated" (read: stolen). Though he was released, there's your precedent. We aren't becoming a police state, we're there.

By Europe and the US, you mean Europe and the UK on his way to Brazil.
 
2013-08-20 06:31:27 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Fireproof: The Lavabit founder said something about that in the first link provided by Laberts above.

Whether he's telling the truth on that one or not is unclear.

Ummm. no. Someone must have been mistaken or made something up. See there's this thing about due process and being able to have a lawyer. For example, what happens if a publicly traded company gets served? Do they have tell every shareholder or JUST the CEO? If lawyers are forbidden from being part of the process... what if the owner/CEO/Shareholders are lawyers? Do you see how ridiculous all that would be? Someone is just making sh*t up.

As a side-note, you could tell your lawyer whatever tf you wanted. Attorney client privilege and all that.


What due process?  When you receive an NSL, you aren't a suspect, "person of interest", under arrest, or anything like that.  You're simply somebody that can get them access to the data that they want.  Would you be entitled to discuss that with a lawyer?  I don't know.

Funny that you bring up owner/CEO etc.:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like -t o-get-a-national-security-letter.html
"The lawyers for the Internet Archive asked to have a private meeting, with no one else there but me. And they said, we've just received a national-security letter, to find out a lot of detailed information about a patron of the Internet Archive.
They were sort of grim: "Let's lock the doors, you'll be the only person who hears about this." They said that, according to the law, you have to give them the information they want, and you can only talk to people such that you can fulfill this request. Other than that, there's nothing else you can do, and then you can't ever mention it to anybody, ever.
So I asked, "Can I bring this up with my board?" And the answer is no. Could I discuss it with my wife? The answer is no, not without risking being put in prison for years."
 
2013-08-20 06:35:58 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: That is the most deluded reasoning I've ever heard.


Did you see the bizarre final post in which she tells people they can email her new, secure, Swiss email account if they find the idea of mailing an American server too worrying. She is therefore suggesting that people send nice, plaintext SMTP email (which the NSA can read, trivially) to an overseas email address (so the NSA is allowed to read it, insofar as they care about legality).

However, it's unfair to accuse her of schizophrenia, which is a particularly nasty mental illness. No, it looks more like egomania and paranoia combined.
 
2013-08-20 06:38:47 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Fireproof: The Lavabit founder said something about that in the first link provided by Laberts above.

Whether he's telling the truth on that one or not is unclear.

Ummm. no. Someone must have been mistaken or made something up. See there's this thing about due process and being able to have a lawyer. For example, what happens if a publicly traded company gets served? Do they have tell every shareholder or JUST the CEO? If lawyers are forbidden from being part of the process... what if the owner/CEO/Shareholders are lawyers? Do you see how ridiculous all that would be? Someone is just making sh*t up.

As a side-note, you could tell your lawyer whatever tf you wanted. Attorney client privilege and all that.


Anyone familiar enough with NSLs to answer that point of yours can't. Problem is NSLs were meant to break due process and are used in their intended form.
 
2013-08-20 06:41:06 PM  
But its not Fascism when Obama does it!
 
2013-08-20 06:41:50 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer. The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

Can't discuss with their lawyer? No.


"'There's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public. So if we're talking about secrecy, you know, it's really been taken to the extreme, and I think it's really being used by the current administration to cover up tactics that they may be ashamed of,' (Levison) said."

So, yes.
 
2013-08-20 06:42:14 PM  

RoboZombie: So if WIkileaks spies on someone it's OK, but if the Government spies on you it's not?

/Devil's Advocate


Wikileaks is spying on the government who is spying on you. Turnabout's fair play?
 
2013-08-20 06:44:33 PM  

JohnTuttle: Cubansaltyballs: Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer. The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

Can't discuss with their lawyer? No.

"'There's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public. So if we're talking about secrecy, you know, it's really been taken to the extreme, and I think it's really being used by the current administration to cover up tactics that they may be ashamed of,' (Levison) said."

So, yes.


That's a very good story on it, and I have a feeling we're going to see more of these things... if people are brave enough to even speak out a little bit.

Of course some people will just call them paranoid.
 
2013-08-20 06:50:08 PM  
Groklaw as a name is wasted on a website.

ts4.mm.bing.net
'Groklaw want your soul!!!'

ts4.mm.bing.net
'Groklaw want your Cheerios!'
 
2013-08-20 06:51:51 PM  
NSLs that impose criminal penalties on you merely for seeking the advice of an attorney are  prima facie unconstitutional, but I can see how it would suck to be the first person to take a stand against the injustice and end up wrongfully imprisoned until the legal issues are sorted out.

That's what a true fighter for liberty would do, though.  A fairweather patriot packs up her toys and runs away.
 
2013-08-20 06:56:26 PM  
upl.co
 
2013-08-20 06:58:28 PM  

JohnTuttle: Cubansaltyballs: Lamberts Ho Man: You need to read between the lines - these organizations (lavabit, silent circle) are shutting down because they've received broad, overreaching national security letters, which they can't reveal even to their lawyer. The organizations are taking a stand for their users, at significant personal risk.

Can't discuss with their lawyer? No.

"'There's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public. So if we're talking about secrecy, you know, it's really been taken to the extreme, and I think it's really being used by the current administration to cover up tactics that they may be ashamed of,' (Levison) said."

So, yes.


Well, he said it, so it must be true.
 
2013-08-20 06:59:44 PM  

poot_rootbeer: NSLs that impose criminal penalties on you merely for seeking the advice of an attorney are  prima facie unconstitutional, but I can see how it would suck to be the first person to take a stand against the injustice and end up wrongfully imprisoned until the legal issues are sorted out.

That's what a true fighter for liberty would do, though.  A fairweather patriot packs up her toys and runs away.


Yep, at least one judge agrees with you: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional
But the ruling is stayed pending appeal by the feds.
 
2013-08-20 07:03:42 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: Cubansaltyballs: Fireproof: The Lavabit founder said something about that in the first link provided by Laberts above.

Whether he's telling the truth on that one or not is unclear.

Ummm. no. Someone must have been mistaken or made something up. See there's this thing about due process and being able to have a lawyer. For example, what happens if a publicly traded company gets served? Do they have tell every shareholder or JUST the CEO? If lawyers are forbidden from being part of the process... what if the owner/CEO/Shareholders are lawyers? Do you see how ridiculous all that would be? Someone is just making sh*t up.

As a side-note, you could tell your lawyer whatever tf you wanted. Attorney client privilege and all that.

What due process?  When you receive an NSL, you aren't a suspect, "person of interest", under arrest, or anything like that.  You're simply somebody that can get them access to the data that they want.  Would you be entitled to discuss that with a lawyer?  I don't know.

Funny that you bring up owner/CEO etc.:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like -t o-get-a-national-security-letter.html
"The lawyers for the Internet Archive asked to have a private meeting, with no one else there but me. And they said, we've just received a national-security letter, to find out a lot of detailed information about a patron of the Internet Archive.
They were sort of grim: "Let's lock the doors, you'll be the only person who hears about this." They said that, according to the law, you have to give them the information they want, and you can only talk to people such that you can fulfill this request. Other than that, there's nothing else you can do, and then you can't ever mention it to anybody, ever.
So I asked, "Can I bring this up with my board?" And the answer is no. Could I discuss it with my wife? The answer is no, not without risking being put in prison for years."


I still don't see anything saying they can't tell their lawyers. But what I guess you're trying to tell me is that when FB gets a letter, it goes right to Zuckerberg... he can't tell his lawyers, but he can tell a developer or someone that can access the data to retrieve a bunch of data and get back to him. That's what you're telling me?

Really? Steve Ballmer is getting NSLs from the govt but is forbidden from telling his counsel? Really? Do you realized how absolutely insane all that sounds? Yes... all these tech CEOs, like Marissa Mayer are handling all those NSLs herself without ANY legal advice. NONE.

Really? You must see how retarded this all sounds.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report