A person who is running a business focused on this kind of privacy should have counsel for their company set up and ready to go. The fact that they didn't was another sign that the company was unprepared for the business that they were handling.
I'd expect someone running this sort of business to have an attorney on retainer who has advised the company of its rights and responsibilities, and who is ready to provide at least emergency counsel if not trial counsel.
I don't think Lavabit was that big of a bussiness. They had to shutdown just because of a $10,000 contempt fee.
And even if they didn't have enough foresight to have regular attorney, it seems very bullish for the government to try to overwhelm the guy with seven different court orders in about 30 days. Just because I do not have the foresight to have an attorney before something like this stars, it doesn't mean I don't have the right to run my bussiness and neither does it make any more acceptable for the government to close it down just because they didn't get their way.
The original discussion was if the owner of Lavabit is to be blamed for being at court without representation, any it was established that he probably didn't have enough resources/foresight to keep an attorney on call (and should not be "blamed" IMO). How things are/should be is off-topic in that matter.
Agreed. Makes one suddenly long for a Ceta-styloe Company-Court, such a company-court might recognize your companys now or future value for acquisitions, and thus allow you to continue to exist instead of being traitor-trampled.
I'd expect someone running this sort of business to have an attorney on retainer who has advised the company of its rights and responsibilities, and who is ready to provide at least emergency counsel if not trial counsel.