5 ms·

I'd go further. I think there needs to be a class action suit brought by customers who purchased a security solution and got snake oil. I'm sure the RSA license

by oroup 13y ago

I'd go further. I think there needs to be a class action suit brought by customers who purchased a security solution and got snake oil. I'm sure the RSA license limits liability but I think there's a case to be made that this isn't just negligence but willful criminal acts and the limitations should be set aside. The case itself would probably be pretty damaging ("Tell us, what did you think the $10m was buying?"). I think RSA would go pretty far to avoid a trial.

us0r 13y ago
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/20111229_9C_Hepting_Opinion.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/20111229_9C_Hepting_Opini... "II. The 2008 Amendments to the FISA While the underlying actions were pending in district court, and partially in response to these suits, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2435, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1885a. Among the amendments is § 802, an immunity provision and related procedures that are triggered if the United States Attorney General certifies to one or more of five conditions. In such case, no civil action may be maintained “against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community.” § 802(a)." This to me says such an action would not even get off the ground let alone them having to answer the "what did you think the $10m was buying" question.
- rhizome 13y ago
  You should also paste the five conditions for completeness: 1. any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance; 2. any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code; 3. any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–55), or 702(h) directing such assistance; 4. in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was— A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was— i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was— i) authorized by the President; and ii) determined to be lawful; or 5. the person did not provide the alleged assistance.
- YokoZar 13y ago
  I'm not sure RSA would want to make that defense. Right now they're claiming that they made the changes to keep the NSA as a customer and because that customer demanded them and they didn't see the harm. To argue they were actively working with the NSA on an intelligence operation, while possibly granting them immunity there, would likely cost them even more customers.

by oroup 13y ago

us0r 13y ago

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/20111229_9C_Hepting_Opinion.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/20111229_9C_Hepting_Opini... "II. The 2008 Amendments to the FISA While the underlying actions were pending in district court, and partially in response to these suits, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2435, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1885a. Among the amendments is § 802, an immunity provision and related procedures that are triggered if the United States Attorney General certifies to one or more of five conditions. In such case, no civil action may be maintained “against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community.” § 802(a)." This to me says such an action would not even get off the ground let alone them having to answer the "what did you think the $10m was buying" question.

rhizome 13y ago
You should also paste the five conditions for completeness: 1. any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance; 2. any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code; 3. any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–55), or 702(h) directing such assistance; 4. in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was— A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was— i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was— i) authorized by the President; and ii) determined to be lawful; or 5. the person did not provide the alleged assistance.
YokoZar 13y ago
I'm not sure RSA would want to make that defense. Right now they're claiming that they made the changes to keep the NSA as a customer and because that customer demanded them and they didn't see the harm. To argue they were actively working with the NSA on an intelligence operation, while possibly granting them immunity there, would likely cost them even more customers.