News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lavabit Challenges Contempt Order: An Analysis of Its Arg... by nullc on Friday October 11, 2013 @08:57PM (#6536783)
Should the government be able to order you to give a blood sample so they can pop out a clone of you, which they can then use to impersonate you towards _anyone_, say, your spouse, in order to potentially perform arbitrarily broad collection whos scope they'll hide under the guise of national security?

They're not asking for evidence, they order the operator of the service to be complicit in aiding the government in impersonating the service towards all of its users.

Re:Lavabit Challenges Contempt Order: An Analysis of Its Arg... by rayiner on Friday October 11, 2013 @08:59PM (#6536791)
No, but unlike a blood sample, an encryption key is "just information."
Re:Lavabit Challenges Contempt Order: An Analysis of Its Arg... by retrogradeorbit on Friday October 11, 2013 @11:15PM (#6537105)
It could be argued that DNA is 'just information'.
Re:Lavabit Challenges Contempt Order: An Analysis of Its Arg... by rayiner on Saturday October 12, 2013 @08:35AM (#6538496)
But a blood sample isn't.