Im reasonably sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to. He's certainly made it sound like that. So first, I'd say he is being very dishonest (if the article is accurate)
Second, a critical point in arguing against warrantless surveillance is that there are legitimate legal channels through which to get the necessary information when it's really needed and that those same channels make the NSA's conduct completely and totally illegal. Failing to abide by those mechanisms makes it hard to make that argument.
It's like having the EFF sticker that says "come back with a warrant" and then a "Fuck the police" sticker next to it.
> "Im reasonable sure they are saying he is heroic for standing up to warrantless surveillance, not refusing to hand over data pursuant to a legitimate and specific warrant that he objected to."
I cannot speak for anybody else, but feel free to consider me among those who consider the later to be heroic. He stuck his neck out for people that he doesn't know, but for whom he feels an obligation to protect. He gave up his business to do it.
Legalities never play a role in my considerations of heroism (except in cases where something being illegal actually serves to make it more heroic, due to the personal sacrifice that typically implies).
Do you really think that the SSL private keys turned over for this legitimate and specific warrant wouldn't have found their way into the warrantless wiretapping program?
No I don't at all, not at least without serious oversight by a federal judge and even then I'd prefer not to have to rely on that. But according to the article, they didn't originally ask for SSL private keys. They asked for Lavabit to give them Snowden's password the next time he logged in. They only resorted to that after they decided Lavabit couldn't be trusted for delaying and refusing to comply with the original court order.
Suppose Lavabit was a bank who got a court order to hand over the contents of a safety deposit box belonging to Snowden and refuses. The FBI demands Lavabit now open the safe that contains all the safety deposit boxs so they can go throw and find Snowden's box and open it. <Edit> and you just have to "trust" them they won't open everything</edit>. This is roughly what happened.
Lavabit is basically claiming that the FBI started out with the break open everything tactic. They are, if the article is true, lying.
No I don't at all, not at least without serious oversight by a federal judge and even then I'd prefer not to have to rely on that
If the data is being acquired under EO 12333, they don't have to report anything to the FISC nor Congress. Where do you see "serious" oversight occurring?
Lavabit had already defied court orders BEFORE they were asked for SSL keys. So it is kind of a moot point. Had they complied with the initial order, SSL keys likely would not have been requested.
Second, a critical point in arguing against warrantless surveillance is that there are legitimate legal channels through which to get the necessary information when it's really needed and that those same channels make the NSA's conduct completely and totally illegal. Failing to abide by those mechanisms makes it hard to make that argument.
It's like having the EFF sticker that says "come back with a warrant" and then a "Fuck the police" sticker next to it.