News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the... by justinschuh on Thursday November 20, 2014 @12:38PM (#8636936)
An NSL can be used only to compel release of connection or transaction metadata, and cannot be used to compel disclosure of message contents. It's basically a fast-track for getting things like call records, and it most emphatically cannot be used to compel turning over a certificate or allowing a man-in-the-middle.

To my knowledge the exact details of the Lavabit case were never released, but from what has been released it's quite clear that the issue was regarding a warrant and a gag order, because the ensuing litigation wouldn't have been remotely applicable to an NSL (otherwise Lavabit's attorney would have won on a walk).

None of this is to say that I think NSLs should exist. In fact, I think they're a terrible idea. But the vast majority of discussions around them and similar topics is so grossly uninformed that it's impossible to take most people seriously on these subjects.

Re:Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the... by Karunamon on Friday November 21, 2014 @12:30PM (#8642269)
Okay, so not an NSL. Incorrect terminology pointing at the same awful effect, an unaccountable court issuing unchallengeable rulings that cannot be discussed.

No substantial difference from the concept I'm complaining about.

Re:Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the... by justinschuh on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @10:21AM (#8658040)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."