declan

91 ms·

811.
by declan 13y ago
The PAA does not exist. But similar language appears in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which Congress renewed most recently in December. Bipartisan enthusiasm, with approximately three-quarters of senators voting for it after safely defea
812.
by declan 13y ago
We learned this month that the company was Yahoo. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru...
813.
Secret court lifts veil, slightly, on Google, Microsoft lawsuits(news.cnet.com)
2 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
814.
by declan 13y ago
This is incorrect. I haven't seen any complaint about FBI agents perusing public web sites, or deputy US Marshals poking around public portions of Facebook to try to track down a fugitive. The flap over the last few weeks has been abou
815.
Data, meet spies: The unfinished state of Web crypto(news.cnet.com)
7 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
816.
by declan 13y ago
No, they're not required to lie. AT&T and Verizon never did when asked about NSA surveillance: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillan...
817.
by declan 13y ago
I would say that storing session keys is vanishingly unlikely and eliminates the benefit of PFS. Google probably spends millions of dollars a year in PFS additional handshake costs. Google then storing the session keys would be a little lik
818.
by declan 13y ago
It's remarkable that you think the NSA vacuuming up everything that flows through a domestic AT&T facility, per the Klein affidavit, merely "could" implicate Americans' private communications. Why not stipulate that
819.
by declan 13y ago
Nobody (except the ACLU, if you phrase the question carefully) will say that court-authorized Title III wiretaps violate the 4A. The questions involve the process, standards, procedures, and scope. Telcos + CALEA == a lost cause. Not so wit
820.
by declan 13y ago
Regulation of the NSA, sure. Regulation of themselves in the form of the FBI's build-in-backdoors-for-surveillance demands, definitely not. The NSA loves CALEA interfaces. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83&#x
821.
by declan 13y ago
Agreed. The Snowden leaks to date have exposed programs whose outline we* guessed at years ago -- but details matter and written confirmation matters. The Patriot Act 215 order against Verizon is arguably illegal and unconstitutional; it ex
822.
by declan 13y ago
Room 641A is in an AT&T facility in San Francisco, not Hanoi. The contents of the communications that have, according to the Klein testimony, been vacuumed up by the NSA in 641A are confidential communications made by Americans who have
823.
WikiLeaks: Where's Snowden? We're not saying(news.cnet.com)
13 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
824.
by declan 13y ago
On the other hand, Edward Snowden didn't have much to do in the last month except spend a few hours talk to reporters -- and plan just this. If Venezuela is his final destination, going by way of Moscow and Cuba is clever. It avoids go
825.
US whistleblower Edward Snowden believed to have landed in Russia(rte.ie)
87 points by declan 13y ago|34 comments
826.
by declan 13y ago
I trust you tried Googling "Russia Snowden asylum?" :) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-r...
827.
by declan 13y ago
Trivial to work around. U.S. formally pledges not to execute Snowden (just life in prison!). Then extradition can happen, assuming it actually goes this far.
828.
by declan 13y ago
Imagine how things might have turned out differently for Bradley Manning if he had a day or two to get out before his arrest.
829.
by declan 13y ago
Your suggestions are far too cute, actually. By going public, and periodically reminding everyone that he could be targeted for assassination, Snowden has created a strong incentive for FedGov to keep him very much alive.
830.
by declan 13y ago
Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. And we don't have independent confirmation that he's on that flight that lands in about 4 hours; we have just the SCMP report, and the destination isn't mentione
831.
by declan 13y ago
From an interview I did in 2010, no bananas: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html The administration's defense of the controversial machines, which use X-rays to perform what critics have dubbed naked st
832.
by declan 13y ago
Agreed. So far, it's working quite well, and is quite clever. I think I would have probably published the documents in this order as well. It's telling that yesterday's document showing Eric Holder signing off on warrantless
833.
How Web mail providers leave door open for NSA surveillance(news.cnet.com)
12 points by declan 13y ago|2 comments
834.
NSA can eavesdrop on Americans' phone calls, documents show(news.cnet.com)
2 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
835.
by declan 13y ago
First, the 5 year limit is, if I recall correctly, based on Holder/DOJ's secret interpretation of the law. It's not fixed in statute. It could have changed at any point. Second, Holder signed the secret authorization in July
836.
by declan 13y ago
All of these are good points. You make a strong argument that there might be little need for a web interface. A few other thoughts, though: - You could still do spam filtering, of course. If it scores highly as spam and the user trusts the
837.
Secret court: Warrantless NSA wiretapping fine (2009)(news.cnet.com)
2 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
838.
by declan 13y ago
You're asserting without evidence that FedGov had or has "wholesale access" to user data. This is a false assertion. Google's legal brief filed yesterday cites the "PRISM" flap, and false allegations like yours
839.
by declan 13y ago
First, that was the non-original version of Hushmail, and over a decade (of development of more capable browsers) has elapsed since the original. Second, the business model would then change to charging for email. Google does that for many
840.
by declan 13y ago
If you look at FAA 702, it's been clear since 2007-2008 that the court does NOT deliberate on and grant an order for each request. See my article from 2007: http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-far-does-the-new-wiretap-law-go..

More ›