| > You stated I got it wrong but my original post was factual and specifically referenced the wikipedia article that references the exact order. 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. |