[liberationtech] Fwd: CryptoSeal shutters, ala: LavaBit

[Zack Brisson]

Naive question from an ignorant amateur:

What are the legal implications if service providers using any surveil-able
channel offer terms of service stating they will: Terminate service
provision prior to release of a user's information to a third party in
instances where prior notice of intended release has not been made.

I don't understand enough of the law to determine whether or not the series
of cases referenced below represents a new legal precedent or something
else. I.e. Given the commercial implications of many communications facilitated
services, could economic considerations create legal standing of comparable
relevance to the security considerations? If a commercial entity complies
with state coercion, in conflict with their commercial obligations that
they have explicitly rather than implicitly made, who arbitrates the spread
of loss & risk across actors?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Zack

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *grarpamp*
Date: Monday, October 21, 2013
Subject: CryptoSeal shutters, ala: LavaBit
To: cypherpunks at cpunks.org


Voluntary shutdown beforehand...

https://privacy.cryptoseal.com/
http://cryptoseal.com/team/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585649
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/cryptoseal-vpn-shuts-down-rather-than-risk-nsa-demands-for-crypto-keys/
http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/10/21/2157225/cryptoseal-shuts-down-consumer-vpn-service-to-avoid-fighting-nsa



-- 
*ZACK BRISSON*
*Principal, Reboot*
45 E 20th St, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003
o: +1 212 388 1010 | m: +1 704 281 5322
Nigeria:  +234 (0)703 655 0687
zack at theReboot.org
theReboot.org <http://www.thereboot.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20131021/25dcd746/attachment.html>