<story><title>CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant</title><url>http://www.itsecurityguru.org/node/4780</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>spindritf</author><text>&lt;i&gt;we had the choice to make - either architect the world&amp;#x27;s most secure encryption system on the planet, so secure that CertiVox cannot see your data, or spend £500,000 building a backdoor into the system&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, just like Lavabit as &amp;#x27;moxie keeps pointing out[1][2], it wasn&amp;#x27;t actually secure. Still, I like the principled stand they took.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6672442&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=6672442&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thoughtcrime.org&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;lavabit-critique&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>CertiVox confirms it withdrew PrivateSky after GCHQ issued warrant</title><url>http://www.itsecurityguru.org/node/4780</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>7952</author><text>There are some details of the legislation in question here[1].  It allows the UK to monitor &amp;quot;in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom&amp;quot; which seems a little broad!&lt;p&gt;It would be interesting to know if this warrant targeted all users or a specific subset?&lt;p&gt;I wonder how they decide whether to issue a warrant or just break into the site in question.  A warrant could imply that they are unable to attack the provider, or that they want to have a chilling effect.&lt;p&gt;[1]&lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_I&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;wiki.openrightsgroup.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Regulation_of_Investiga...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>