I'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.
The 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, worldÂ.
CISPA 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.
As 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.
I'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.
Argh. 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-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
I 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
I knew we'd get some action from congress over this fiasco.
Doesn't this suggest that the NSA may have broader, more illegal actions planned for which their corporate partners want cover?
But he assured us everything was above board and legal.
An 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.
This is fucking wrong.
Meh. 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"?
The 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?
A pretty clear historical prospective starts around the TIA discussion: http://www.npr.org/2013/06/19/192770397/the-watchers-have-ha...
We 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.
The best thing that can come from this is that each and every company name is published.
Again, this is nothing new, this move just extends it to more companies.
Join the cause (protests planned for July 4th on the right):
If companies are people according to the law, then wouldn't individuals be afforded the same protection, in some sort of legal reciprocity juju?
Why 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?
When are we sending this guy to jail?
This 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.