1 hour ago, evildictaitor wrote
Not really. The response was "This is not what was asked, and is contempt of the court order". It's like paying your taxes in pennies delivered in a skip and deposited outside an IRS office. It's not allowed because it's not reasonable.
In the UK if HMRC were to get a court order forcing you to pay your taxes you would be entitled to leave a skip of pound coins or above at their goods in address...
EDIT: Anyway it's a bad analogy. 11 pages of text is clearly easily cope-with-able.
The court ordered him to turn over his SSL keys. He chose to take the piss and get in the way of a criminal investigation that was extremely time-sensitive and was affecting national security.
1) While IANAL, and I don't know what the exact wording of the court order was, he DID provide the information the court asked for in a format that they could use. Unless there's legal grounds to say that format wasn't good enough you're on very shaky ground saying it doesn't count just because they didn't like it. He has to comply with the law, he doesn't have to render assistance beyond that. (To go back to your previous analogy this is precisely why we have the concept of legal tender for settlement of court enforced debts.)
2) This didn't affect national security, there's almost no doubt it's the Snowden case. It's the authorities trying to shut down somebody who's embarrassed them.
3) The US government doesn't seem to respect the law in this area much, so why should Levison?
They're going to throw the book at him, and he's going to lose; his actions were clearly designed to obstruct the court, and he's also just leaked a series of documents protected by a gag-order. He's probably going to go to jail, and frankly he deserves to.
1) They were unsealed by a federal judge, they were not leaked by Levison... and it is necessary that they were unsealed, for the sake of open justice.
2) As I understand the article all Levison is liable for is $15,000 of fines for the 3 days the service operated past the deadline. Once he ceased to operate the service clearly no further legal obligation to provide an intercept can exist since there is no service to intercept. To suggest that shutting down the service, instead of providing the intercept, is contempt is clearly preposterous.
3) I don't think Ladar Levison necessarily believes he'll win the court case, although of course he hopes to. He only loses when, like Bradley Manning or Winston Smith, the boot has so ground into his face that he has capitulated to their ideology. He wins if the court of public opinion sides with him and forces changes.