9 ms·

Around San Francisco this week, some were seen sporting Electronic Frontier Foundation T-shirts featuring a retooled N.S.A. logo with an eagle using its talons

by naaaaak 13y ago

Around San Francisco this week, some were seen sporting Electronic Frontier Foundation T-shirts featuring a retooled N.S.A. logo with an eagle using its talons to plug into the American telecom network, symbolized by AT&T. Asked about the T-shirts, one AT&T executive, who asked not to be named, said they had a chilling effect. “There are many of us at AT&T who are disturbed by what we’ve been hearing about the N.S.A.,” this person said. “But when you see that,” he said, pointing to the T-shirts, “a conversation becomes impossible.” ---- The conversation became impossible when your company decided to willingly give up everything and anything about its customers for a fee. Were it not for customer apathy, I'd like to think your entire shitty company would have been fucked out of existence by now for what they continue to do. But not really, because your company probably would have just been given a bailout for failing at everything but sucking government dick. Fuck you nameless executive. I wish I could request anonymity as easily as you can. Your shitty company brought this upon itself and there is nothing to discuss until it stops being the NSA's bitch.

lotsofmangos 13y ago
About the t-shirts, perhaps that is how Snowden got away with it. He was wearing one of those t-shirts at work, so they were unable to ask him what he was doing due to the impossibility of having a conversation.
- serf 13y ago
  good point. I think this also highlights a possible solution to the privacy debate. Let's all wear these tshirts, maybe they'll be unable to listen to us.
lostcolony 13y ago
Yes. A conversation was possible for the decade before Snowden leaked. Those who could have initiated it, from the government to these companies, did not do so. Bemoaning the inability to have a conversation -now- is really just bemoaning the inability to sweep everything under the rug as people demand substantive change.
- rurban 13y ago
  Hell, those criminals were even granted immunity for their crimes. Forward immunity by letter 2511, and retrospective by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. And just because the DOJ and the gov say it's legal does not mean it's legal per se.
hga 13y ago
The object lesson of another RBOC's CEO, Joseph Nacchio, gives me a lot more sympathy for AT&T and company. Was it wise to fight this way back then if the cost was a Federal felony conviction and prison? Now things have changed, and it's starting to be appropriate to pressure AT&T and company to Do The Right Thing.
- aedocw 13y ago
  I think the stakes of speaking out have been raised. Five, six years ago you risked felony and prison. Today, you risk being labeled an enemy combatant, or even worse, a traitor to the nation (facing execution). The US government has sent a very clear message - if you have direct knowledge of the way the surveillance is being expanded, and speak out, you're a traitor to the country. In my opinion THAT'S what the general public needs to recognize. The stakes for whistleblowers have been raised to the absolute limit.
badman_ting 13y ago
Right, everything was possible until some goon made a t-shirt and wore it on the street. That was what killed our chances of recovering from this thing. What a piece of shit.
weland 13y ago
This is the first thing that crossed my mind. Ten years ago we could have had a conversation. AT&T and NSA decided we shouldn't. What exactly is it to talk about now? Also, no matter how much we dislike such arguments, there's no such thing as "many of us at AT&T were disturbed by what we've been hearing about the NSA". The people who work for AT&T are AT&T. They all share the burden of what AT&T did. This isn't some insensitive, extremist whining. I know, from personal experience, how hard it is to reflect on the ethics of the bigger picture you fit in. I'm not insinuating we should now start lynching AT&T employees, since we can't get at the bigger fish. However, a lot of employees who are disgruntled at the social and ethical behaviour of their company actually have an option to leave; this would be a correct approach, not complaining about not being able to talk to bystanders. "Collective" responsibility is, by no means, absolving of personal responsibility. Even AT&T imply it on their careers page: > At AT&T, we’re connecting the world like never before. Ready to get in on the action? Together we’ll do great things.
- insensible 13y ago
  An AT&T staffer giving me a data center tour circa 2006 told me only one of the VPs knew who the client was for one of the areas in the room. What is a staffer going to do to influence that kind of situation?
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Say that they should know who they're doing business with? Ask why they're hiding something important from their colleagues? Switch jobs to a company that actually trusts their employees?
  - weland 13y ago
    Switch jobs. AT&T wouldn't be a top partner for the NSA without competent people. This isn't an option for a lot of people; the folks doing tech support or working in the shops and barely get along on minimum wage don't have that option. The decision makers and tech leads do. I'm not talking out of my ass. I have resigned from a very well-paid position because of ethical reasons, and there was far, far less at stake than general privacy matters.
forgottenpass 13y ago
“But when you see that,” he said, pointing to the T-shirts, “a conversation becomes impossible.” This is the attitude of someone that has already decided to perpetuate the status quo, being reminded of the fact his position does not stand up well under public scrutiny. The conversation is impossible now because it always was. Or rather, it was highly unlikely to happen, even less likely to change anything, and only possible at all for the most hair-splitting of reasons. I see this kind of rationalization up close so often I'm uncomfortable with how little it makes my blood boil anymore. A public revelation puts egg on someone's face, they bellyache that if the problem was brought to them properly they could have fixed it. It relies on two assumptions that for any instance of this at least one of is blatantly false. A) The exec wasn't aware of the issue already, and happy to keep it going so long as public doesn't find out and B) that the person who just went public not only could have somehow gotten a conversation with him in private, but would have been able to change his position.
- SimHacker 13y ago
  We were TOTALLY planning on having a fair and balanced conversation with you, and listening to everything you had to say, and telling you the truth. But those darn T-shirts have ruined everything, by hurting our feelings. Now there can be no conversation, because our feelings are hurt, and we are totally disappointed that you've forced us to refuse to have the conversation we were really looking forward to having! And it's all the fault of the mean people wearing those conversation stopping T-shirts.
res0nat0r 13y ago
I'd hold off on the Internet rage for a bit and realize that Att has been required by law for many years now to assist in telecom surveillance. CALEA. Look it up.
- SimHacker 13y ago
  What is the name of the law that requires them to cancel having conversations they were otherwise looking forward to having, if people wear t-shirts that hurt their feelings?
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Probably because they will sound like the comment above? Blind Internet nerd rage uninformed of actual facts doesn't lead to a discussion worth spending your time on.
    - na85 13y ago
      We need more rage, not less. Substantive change occurs only when people get pissed off.
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      I think your raging accusations that the nerds protesting against RSA are uninformed of the actual facts is totally off base. Maybe there are some facts that RSA is holding back and refusing to officially inform us of, but I think we already have a pretty good idea of what they are. And how does your answer "Probably because..." address my question "What is the name of the law...". I am asking you for an actual objective fact, the name of the law, not for you to take a wild guess about "Why" anybody is doing anything. Are you even replying to the right posting, or just constructing a coatrack on which to hang your off-base raging accusations? Care to try again and cite the name of the law that I asked for?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  CALEA spells out LI requirements. Anything CALEA covers, at least for investigations that have been closed, can be openly discussed. Intercepts using LI in the infrastructure are routinely introduced as evidence in trials. The spec docs might be FOUO, but LI capabilities are not a state secret. Dragnet surveillance in cooperation with the NSA is a whole other thing. It might use some LI facilities, but, in many cases, LI specs for telecom equipment would not cut it for NSA purposes. Hence all the switches having LI capability and the NSA having their own cable taps and backhaul.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by naaaaak 13y ago

lotsofmangos 13y ago

About the t-shirts, perhaps that is how Snowden got away with it. He was wearing one of those t-shirts at work, so they were unable to ask him what he was doing due to the impossibility of having a conversation.

serf 13y ago
good point. I think this also highlights a possible solution to the privacy debate. Let's all wear these tshirts, maybe they'll be unable to listen to us.

lostcolony 13y ago

Yes. A conversation was possible for the decade before Snowden leaked. Those who could have initiated it, from the government to these companies, did not do so. Bemoaning the inability to have a conversation -now- is really just bemoaning the inability to sweep everything under the rug as people demand substantive change.

rurban 13y ago
Hell, those criminals were even granted immunity for their crimes. Forward immunity by letter 2511, and retrospective by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. And just because the DOJ and the gov say it's legal does not mean it's legal per se.

hga 13y ago

The object lesson of another RBOC's CEO, Joseph Nacchio, gives me a lot more sympathy for AT&T and company. Was it wise to fight this way back then if the cost was a Federal felony conviction and prison? Now things have changed, and it's starting to be appropriate to pressure AT&T and company to Do The Right Thing.

aedocw 13y ago
I think the stakes of speaking out have been raised. Five, six years ago you risked felony and prison. Today, you risk being labeled an enemy combatant, or even worse, a traitor to the nation (facing execution). The US government has sent a very clear message - if you have direct knowledge of the way the surveillance is being expanded, and speak out, you're a traitor to the country. In my opinion THAT'S what the general public needs to recognize. The stakes for whistleblowers have been raised to the absolute limit.

badman_ting 13y ago

Right, everything was possible until some goon made a t-shirt and wore it on the street. That was what killed our chances of recovering from this thing. What a piece of shit.

weland 13y ago

This is the first thing that crossed my mind. Ten years ago we could have had a conversation. AT&T and NSA decided we shouldn't. What exactly is it to talk about now? Also, no matter how much we dislike such arguments, there's no such thing as "many of us at AT&T were disturbed by what we've been hearing about the NSA". The people who work for AT&T are AT&T. They all share the burden of what AT&T did. This isn't some insensitive, extremist whining. I know, from personal experience, how hard it is to reflect on the ethics of the bigger picture you fit in. I'm not insinuating we should now start lynching AT&T employees, since we can't get at the bigger fish. However, a lot of employees who are disgruntled at the social and ethical behaviour of their company actually have an option to leave; this would be a correct approach, not complaining about not being able to talk to bystanders. "Collective" responsibility is, by no means, absolving of personal responsibility. Even AT&T imply it on their careers page: > At AT&T, we’re connecting the world like never before. Ready to get in on the action? Together we’ll do great things.

insensible 13y ago
An AT&T staffer giving me a data center tour circa 2006 told me only one of the VPs knew who the client was for one of the areas in the room. What is a staffer going to do to influence that kind of situation?
- wpietri 13y ago
  Say that they should know who they're doing business with? Ask why they're hiding something important from their colleagues? Switch jobs to a company that actually trusts their employees?
- weland 13y ago
  Switch jobs. AT&T wouldn't be a top partner for the NSA without competent people. This isn't an option for a lot of people; the folks doing tech support or working in the shops and barely get along on minimum wage don't have that option. The decision makers and tech leads do. I'm not talking out of my ass. I have resigned from a very well-paid position because of ethical reasons, and there was far, far less at stake than general privacy matters.

forgottenpass 13y ago

“But when you see that,” he said, pointing to the T-shirts, “a conversation becomes impossible.” This is the attitude of someone that has already decided to perpetuate the status quo, being reminded of the fact his position does not stand up well under public scrutiny. The conversation is impossible now because it always was. Or rather, it was highly unlikely to happen, even less likely to change anything, and only possible at all for the most hair-splitting of reasons. I see this kind of rationalization up close so often I'm uncomfortable with how little it makes my blood boil anymore. A public revelation puts egg on someone's face, they bellyache that if the problem was brought to them properly they could have fixed it. It relies on two assumptions that for any instance of this at least one of is blatantly false. A) The exec wasn't aware of the issue already, and happy to keep it going so long as public doesn't find out and B) that the person who just went public not only could have somehow gotten a conversation with him in private, but would have been able to change his position.

SimHacker 13y ago
We were TOTALLY planning on having a fair and balanced conversation with you, and listening to everything you had to say, and telling you the truth. But those darn T-shirts have ruined everything, by hurting our feelings. Now there can be no conversation, because our feelings are hurt, and we are totally disappointed that you've forced us to refuse to have the conversation we were really looking forward to having! And it's all the fault of the mean people wearing those conversation stopping T-shirts.

res0nat0r 13y ago

I'd hold off on the Internet rage for a bit and realize that Att has been required by law for many years now to assist in telecom surveillance. CALEA. Look it up.

SimHacker 13y ago
What is the name of the law that requires them to cancel having conversations they were otherwise looking forward to having, if people wear t-shirts that hurt their feelings?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Probably because they will sound like the comment above? Blind Internet nerd rage uninformed of actual facts doesn't lead to a discussion worth spending your time on.
  - na85 13y ago
    We need more rage, not less. Substantive change occurs only when people get pissed off.
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    I think your raging accusations that the nerds protesting against RSA are uninformed of the actual facts is totally off base. Maybe there are some facts that RSA is holding back and refusing to officially inform us of, but I think we already have a pretty good idea of what they are. And how does your answer "Probably because..." address my question "What is the name of the law...". I am asking you for an actual objective fact, the name of the law, not for you to take a wild guess about "Why" anybody is doing anything. Are you even replying to the right posting, or just constructing a coatrack on which to hang your off-base raging accusations? Care to try again and cite the name of the law that I asked for?
Zigurd 13y ago
CALEA spells out LI requirements. Anything CALEA covers, at least for investigations that have been closed, can be openly discussed. Intercepts using LI in the infrastructure are routinely introduced as evidence in trials. The spec docs might be FOUO, but LI capabilities are not a state secret. Dragnet surveillance in cooperation with the NSA is a whole other thing. It might use some LI facilities, but, in many cases, LI specs for telecom equipment would not cut it for NSA purposes. Hence all the switches having LI capability and the NSA having their own cable taps and backhaul.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]