[higherpurpose]

I agree that legally, Levison probably made a mistake by stonewalling DoJ.

However, I worry about what losing this case means in the grand scheme of things. DoJ's argument was that they should be able to get the key to decrypt all e-mails for all of Lavabit's users, and the Court says that's fine because the government "wouldn't" use the key for anything other than the "target" - which seems like a ridiculous and incredibly reckless argument post-Snowden.

Would Google just hand over the key to all of their Gmail users? Let's imagine they weren't using PFS - or let's imagine they were asking Microsoft for the Outlook key, instead.

[mpyne]

> Would Google just hand over the key to all of their Gmail users?

No, Google would comply with the narrow, specific warrant the first time. Again, it bears repeating that the only reason DoJ asked for the master key in the first place is because Levison refused to comply with the narrow requests. If Levison wouldn't do it, then the government would figure it out on their own, but the only reason this situation even came up is because Levison wouldn't do it.

Not complying with a narrow and specified warrant is highly hypocritical, especially in this case since Snowden's initial claims were entirely about wanting the NSA to have to have specific warrants for their searches instead of using broad search authorities. But when push came to shove and the government presented a narrow and specific warrant, of a type Levison had previously honored, all of a sudden that was no longer good enough for this particular privacy advocate.

[higherpurpose]

Wasn't it his right to fight a court order (don't think it was warrant) like that? I think Twitter has fought court orders in the past, while refusing to give the data in the mean time.

I think Levison's mistake was that he did it all by himself, instead of hiring a lawyer and following the proper procedure for doing that. The government escalated with a broader request, which I guess was also their right to try (even if it's wrong), and then Levison tried to fight that with a lawyer, but I guess it was a little too late for that, and what he did initially complicated things for his case.

[anigbrowl]

Wasn't it his right to fight a court order (don't think it was warrant) like that?

It's his right to fight the government request, or to appeal the court order to a higher court. But it's not his right to evade compliance. Yes the court is part of the government but it's not the executive part - courts can and do reject the arguments of the government (qua legal entity) all the time.

[tptacek]

He didn't simply fight the order; he deliberately antagonized the DOJ.

Presumably Twitter's lawyers avoid brinksmanship, knowing that they'll inevitably lose and, in the process, lose credibility with the court.

[jethro_tell]

It is, but at this point he didn't have a lawyer (via a quote from his lawyer in the most recent court proceeding), so instead of going to court with the DOJ, a Lawyer, and a Judge, and explaining the technical issues, he just hoped they would go away or something. When you get a note of this nature from the DOJ that you aren't interested in complying with, you should probably carve out some time on the same day to call your lawyer, or the ACLU or EFF.

[chc]

I think the crux of the DOJ's argument is that they should be able to get the key because less intrusive methods they might have employed have been blocked, so it has become the least intrusive method available.

Google wouldn't hand over the key to all of their Gmail users — they would offer a better option, which Levison did not.

[pdabbadabba]

It means almost literally nothing precedent-wise. The court affirmed the district court because Levinson either failed to raise his arguments before the district court and, in fact, conceded "that the [G]overnment [was] entitled to the [requested] information." It does not reach the substantive propriety of the warrant and order and cannot properly be cited for any such proposition.