| > You got Lavabit case exactly wrong. No wonder you're confused. I can't tell if you're trying to troll me or what at this point. I link you to the lavabit case details then you link me to the lavabit details. They wanted a "pen register" which assumes reasonable hook-up-ability. This wasn't possible without reprogramming the system. This made it unreasonable and it was withdrawn. Then they asked for the SSL key so they could use a pen register. The owner suggested, instead of the SSL key, that he write software to avoid it and they declined so he shut it down. You stated I got it wrong but my original post was factual and specifically referenced the wikipedia article that references the exact order. Nothing that you have posted has shown otherwise. > > You can't use discovery to force someone to write software the doesn't exist to provide additional functionality to a product. > You absolutely can. > https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-v-di.... > "A party may serve on any other party a request ... to produce ... any designated documents ... stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form." But you can't. Translation cannot be twisted to meaning "develop a new feature that creates another way to enter a system". It just can't. > But again, the whole point of this discovery tangent was to show that courts can and very often do "force someone to work for you," which I will assume you now concede is true. The best they can do, again, is reasonable collection from a medium which consists of direct or requiring translation. I'm not sure what I would concede here as nothing I have said goes against the sources you have posted. As far as I am concerned this conversation is over as I do not see the value in continuing to repeat the same information, over and over. |
Let's refresh your memory.
> The owner of Lavabit offered to do some coding so they could target the meta data of a single person but it was rejected so he ultimately shut his service down.
No, he didn't offer to do it. He was ordered to do it and refused. Only after refusal did the FBI ask him to hand over his private key, not because it was "unreasonable" as you erroneously claimed but because after he realized he would be held in contempt for not doing the work, he was delaying access to the data by negotiating terms of work too slowly, causing the government to forever lose the ability to collect metadata that would have been generated in the meantime. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/lava...
> Translation cannot be twisted to meaning "develop a new feature that creates another way to enter a system". It just can't.
You're moving the goalposts. First, it was 'the government can't make you work," for which I gave you the discovery example as a counterexample that happens all the time. Then it was "the government can't make you write software​," and I showed you that it just so happens you can be effectively forced to write software as part of discovery. Now it's "you can't be forced to write software to create another way to enter a system." Discovery doesn't serve as a counterexample to that claim because I never intended it to be a counterexample to that claim but to that first claim. As I've repeatedly stated, the Lavabit case is a counterexample to this third claim.
> I do not see the value in continuing to repeat the same information, over and over.
Nor do I. I'm hoping you actually have some new information that your argument can stand on instead of repeating the same things I debunked in my very first post.