8 ms·
NSA Boss Asks Congress For Blanket Immunity For Companies That Help NSA Spy
- LoganCale 13y agoBut he assured us everything was above board and legal.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoI knew we'd get some action from congress over this fiasco.
- Yaa101 13y agoAs if that will help public perception of these companies, I think after these outings of the companies in question, nothing stays the same, ever. I personally will never ever trust any company with putting stuff into their systems. For me the cloud as offered by them is dead and buried forever, even though I know that the NSA can capture anything with their split network rooms, the companies just lost my trust by lying as first. It would have been less worse if they said that they were forced, but no, the arrogant adolescent nerd boys management thought it was ok to lie.
- zhemao 13y agoFirst of all, we don't know whether they were lying. Second of all, if they were, they may have been forced by the government to lie. The FISA requests they were getting also came with gag orders.
- emiliobumachar 13y agoI have not read the law, but I think a gag order can't force you to lie. Lie to a directly asked question, gray area; issue a lying press release or blog post, not mandatory. I am not a lawyer.
- j_baker 13y agoMeh. To me this just seems like codification of what's already happening. If there are criminal charges against an NSA contractor, what's stopping the government from stopping it by claiming "state secrets"?
- jroseattle 13y agoThe only thing the NSA is accomplishing right now are encouraging innovations in privacy to help people avoid detection. And, gosh, I wonder who will be the first to seize onto that? Mmm, criminals perhaps?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpyne 13y agoInnovations like Tor, BitCoin, PGP, and TLS?
- e3pi 13y agoLPPNIOP MJDAOII CPFEGAA JOOEMEC HECPACE FALPLIC IEMLJMK BBCYNJN DFGCLGK GDMLEKM NMLBJDD AMDNPJE KPMGMME LDHDOAA CBAOKJF OFHIALD ... BPLLPYG KNDHLNA AFGLOIL LDIFGMO MCCCLAD ODMKNEH PMJDPJC JCAAINI JLGNBMP LEINPIP YCEHCBM PBKFOKG EMCOPGO KBPEEAP LOOMLEK DBICPJE plaintext: "Don't you wished everybody used Ivory(tm) soap?"
- epoxyhockey 13y agoThe best thing that can come from this is that each and every company name is published.
- pvnick 13y agoCISPA anyone? Now we know why that law was pushed so hard, and we now have another strong reason to oppose this tactic. But Keith usually gets what Keith wants, so I'd bet money on it passing this time around.
- jdp23 13y agoYeah, I was talking with some other activists about applying lessons from the SOPA/CISPA victory to the Patriot Act/FISA, and three people at the same time three time "it's all part of the same fight ..."
- mullingitover 13y agoThis is a brilliant end-run around the fourth amendment. Sure, the government isn't allowed to do mass warrantless surveillance, but they can order companies to do it illegally and then pardon them.
- rayiner 13y agoIt might be an end-run around the 4th amendment if the government was ordering companies to do mass surveillance (though we can argue about whether the 4th amendment has anything to do with surveillance at all). But the government doesn't need to do that. The companies already do all the surveillance, and people happily hand over to those companies their data. Is it an end-run around the 4th amendment for the government to then compel companies to provide this data? It's not like the subpoena is a new and novel legal instrument. Even in 1790 the government could compel companies to hand over all the information they had about a target of investigation.
- nickodell 13y agoIt's not like the subpoena is a new legal instrument True, but there isn't an 18th century analogue to a company that has all of your personal correspondence.
- mpyne 13y agoThere were newspapers, which people would post open letters in. I seem to remember a Reddit post about some gentleman calling another one a "scoundrel" and a "coward" and challenging him to a duel. Later (in the 19th century), there was Western Union...
- danielweber 13y agoI like this point, but I have some questions. 1. What information would the newspaper keep that isn't published? Would they file all the envelopes of regular correspondence? 2. How deep and old would Western Union's records be?
- ccarter84 13y agoI think anyone who actually cares about this stuff has two simultaneous responses here. 1. Do you actually care if you get it? 2. Go f* yourselves
- bumbledraven 13y agoWhy is everyone so angry at the companies for complying with these government orders instead of being angry at the government that's ordering them to do these illegal things?
- jasonwatkinspdx 13y agoI'm disgusted to see our government still continues to operate however it wishes, confident that if they get caught breaking the law, the law can be promptly and retroactively nullified.
- malandrew 13y agoI'm honestly shocked that many of these companies aren't being sued in European courts. There is more than enough evidence now to support this. Hit every company on their bottom line. Europeans need to present the following dichotomous choice to every American tech company: (1) Operate in Europe and make money here, but no spying on any EU citizen. (2) Continue spying, but don't operate in Europe. Alternatively, eliminate the tax evasion benefits of routing everything through Ireland. The tax hit of forcing many US companies to pay the full amount of US corporate taxes should be more than enough to change their tune.
- criley2 13y agoIf the NSA is tapping fiber at providers, a la Room 641A, then the companies behavior is completely irrelevant to the spying, and the NSA watches all traffic in and out of their networks anyway. So your choice, as a European, seems to be utilize networks that don't pass through America at all, or have the NSA spy on you. I apologize for the inconvenience.
- jtome 13y agoWrong, if they are tapping at the wires they only see that your using gmail, not the content of your email or who you are speaking to (Unless you turn off ssl for some strange reason).
- csirac2 13y agoIsn't the whole point of all this outrage that NSA have equipment or data exchange arrangements with GMail etc. so that SSL is irrelevant?
- jtome 13y ago"Isn't the whole point of all this outrage that NSA have equipment or data exchange arrangements with GMail etc. so that SSL is irrelevant" Yes which is why the NSA needs the cooperation of the companies, since this info can't be gotten just by listening on the wire.
- 13y ago
- namank 13y agoThe implications are more serious than immunity for NSA actions. This law could circumvent the breaking of ALL and ANY laws by these companies. After such a law is passed, companies may not have to be accountable to anyone. When questioned, they can lie about it and say the NSA said so. They don't need to release transparency reports cuz the NSA said so. Any tech company can lie to the Privacy Commissioner cuz the NSA said so. They can do anything cuz the NSA said so. This is the mother of all loopholes. Good luck, world.
- anigbrowl 13y agoExcept that they'd have to do so in court, and the NSA would have the option of filing an amicus curiae brief saying 'oh no we didn't.'
- namank 13y agoExcept that companies would want to negotiate, lets say, a contract to include a gray area clause that serves as an incentive for the companies to keep doing this. Once this thing becomes legal, companies have grounds to organize this as a trade with the NSA. The funny (maybe scary is the right word?) part is that they can legally lie about this because it's with the NSA.
- anigbrowl 13y agoWildly implausible.
- rcthompson 13y agoAn interesting tidbit from this article is the quote of the quote of the quote of Gen. Alexander asking for an intentionally "ill-defined" law. I've never heard of such a strategy before. Is this a new thing, or are there documented examples of laws that were made intentionally vague in order to give their beneficiaries more power or latitude than anyone would rationally agree to explicitly? Off the top of my head, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law might qualify.
- jtome 13y agoSection 215 of the Patriot Act has a secret interpretation
- rcthompson 13y agoBut my question is: was it originally written with a vague wording with the intent of later interpreting it a certain way, or was the secret interpretation a later optimistic move given the existing wording?
- danielsiders 13y agoDoesn't this suggest that the NSA may have broader, more illegal actions planned for which their corporate partners want cover?
- bobwaycott 13y agoThis is fucking wrong.
- ihsw 13y agoWhat are you waiting for? Talk to your friends, talk to your co-workers, talk to your congressional representatives. Or are you afraid that they'll rat you out to the police for being a 'dissident?' If you are then they've already won.
- antimatter 13y agoI've done exactly this and it's shocking how many people simply don't care or don't see how wrong this is.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ChrisAntaki 13y agoWhen are we sending this guy to jail?
- krapp 13y agoReally? Probably never.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ChrisAntaki 13y agoReally. We need to send him to jail, otherwise he'll keep breaking the law. Edit: While he's in jail, maybe he could pick up a copy of the Constitution. :)
- krapp 13y agoLet's wait until any of this has been definitively, objectively declared illegal first. [edit] His Wikipedia page says he's expected to retire next year. I have a sneaking suspicion nothing touches him and he's left alone to ride off into the sunset. [edit edit] Actually... lying to the House is kind of illegal isn't it....
- wavefunction 13y agoUnder oath with penalty of perjury, it is.
- altcognito 13y agoAgain, this is nothing new, this move just extends it to more companies. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/91805 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/91805
- scelerat 13y agoIf companies are people according to the law, then wouldn't individuals be afforded the same protection, in some sort of legal reciprocity juju?
- jholman 13y agoArgh. Important subject material, crappy article, lots of confusion, argh argh argh. TL;DR: everything about the WAY this story was reported is an obvious deception. First, methodology. This is blogspam that adds nothing to the original article at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EF9BC1BF-34EB-4168-8735-A95FE2F48D05 http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EF9BC1BF-34EB-41... (at least they link it). That article, in turn, cites no sources. So I'm basing the following only on those articles. Also, let me be clear that I'm anti-immunity in general, and I think that the UsGov behaviour in Hepting vs AT&T is reprehensible, and no one should ever vote for any lawmaker who voted in favour of FISA, for that reason alone. Okay, let's take it apart. If you read TOA, it specifically says Alexander specifically claims he's not asking for blanket immunity. So the title is linkbait. Fuck you techdirt, for sabotaging the cause of freedom; now if/when Alexander/NSA replies to this article, he can avoid the issue by denying your false allegation. Don't muddy the waters. Next, the context is not explicitly about spying at all. Not at all. Zero mention of spying. Oh look, the headilne is linkbait twice over. Fuck you twice over, techdirt. I can only conclude that Mike Masnick is either illiterate, or a liar. ALSO, while Alexander is the head of the NSA, and while the NSA and the USCYBERCOM are deeply in bed, they is still some distinction, and this really sounds more like a USCYBERCOM thing than an NSA thing. Next, listen, the only legitimate reason for cops to exist is to protect the populace. And if there's ONE thing that I trust Alexander about, it's the fact that at least some people want to fuck with US companies and US infrastructure (he's probably lying about the scale, and basically everything else). If SinoGov, or crazy terrorists, or AnonSecOfTheWeek, or whatever, attack US Companies, and private enterprise can't cope, it's reasonable for USGov to fight on behalf of Americans and American companies, and that might include giving them advice on cybersecurity, and that might involve giving them the equivalent of virus definitions, and saying "block all traffic that matches this signature and you'll be in better shape". This is legit. This is a strong argument. He goes on to say that if companies obey the NSA and turn out to harm someone with it, they should be immune. Okay, this part I disagree with. But seriously, of all the horrible asshole claims the NSA has made lately, this one is about as reasonable as it gets. That said, I'd argue against such immunity. If the companies act in good faith with due diligence, what do they have to lose? And if they don't do due diligence, fuck them... what kind of moron trusts the fucking NSA? As for counter-hacking, sooner or later the law is going to have to address it. And it's going to be difficult. And they should fucking get started, and proceed slowly and cautiously. EDIT: slight touch-up on TLDR
- sitkack 13y agoWe need (maybe not) a constitutional amendment that prevents - retroactive legality - retroactive il-legality - immunity I don't / can't even understand how immunity can be a thing. Sounds like some kids making up bullshit rules on the playground. To even suggest it points directly at guilt.
- ellisd 13y agoA pretty clear historical prospective starts around the TIA discussion: http://www.npr.org/2013/06/19/192770397/the-watchers-have-had-their-eyes-on-us-for-years http://www.npr.org/2013/06/19/192770397/the-watchers-have-ha...
- mtgx 13y agoJoin the cause (protests planned for July 4th on the right): http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth