On 06/07/13 02:34 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
The "oh well, it happens, who cares, guess you need PGP" comments on this thread are idiotic. Some of you would benefit from reading the text of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
OpenPGP and other end-to-end protocols protect against all nefarious actors, including state entities. I'll admit my first reaction yesterday after hearing this news was - so what? Network security by its nature presumes that an insecure channel is going to be attacked and compromised. The 4th Amendment is a layer-8 solution to a problem that is better solved lower in the stack.
The Washington Post mentioned some "safeguards"... but those were pathetic. Why? They seemed to be similar to the following analogy: "we'll keep that video camera in your home, recording your every move, and we promise we'll close our eyes when reviewing the tape whenever it shows you naked". THAT is essentially what they're saying. The access described by both the Washington Post and The Guardian is essentially unfettered/unmetered/unmonitored.
Just as a doctors take the "hippocratic oath" to maintain decent standards which are to the benefit of modern civilization... shouldn't IT/Networking/Internet professionals (NANOG readers!!!) have standards that, hopefully, distinguishes us from... say... the State-run ISP of North Korea.
And if these allegations are true... then...
I have a difficult time believing that there was no "quid pro quo" involved. Especially since such companies risk a backlash and huge loss of customers if/when this gets out. So I don't think they'd do this without some kind of return in favor. Did they get special tax treatment? Tarp money of any kind (maybe to a parent company)? Easing of regulation enforcement?
I assume these taps were put in place under the auspices of (by order of) homeland security or some such. If there were some financial incentive involved, I'd be surprise. -- Dan White