Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On 10/04/2016 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote:
Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android
I wonder if the execs who approved this or someone on Y!'s legal team who advised them to comply is secretly on Google's payroll or plans to 'jump ship' into a BIG raise. Rr With links: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/arti... By Tim Johnson [email redacted] Civil and human rights groups issued denunciations and some cybersecurity experts urged their clients to stop using the popular Yahoo Mail service after a news agency reported Tuesday that the internet service provider had secretly scanned hundreds of millions of clients’ emails at the behest of U.S. intelligence agencies. The report by the Reuters news service said Yahoo complied with a classified U.S. government directive last year that demanded that it scan all incoming emails of its users for certain phrases. The report said Yahoo’s engineers wrote a program that complied with the blanket spying request. “Enough is enough. It’s time to close your Yahoo account,” Graham Cluley, a British cybersecurity expert, tweeted following the report. The report was the second piece of challenging news in recent days for the Sunnyvale, California, company as it attempts to finalize a $4.8 billion sale of its core business to Verizon. On Sept. 22, Yahoo acknowledged that the passwords of 500 million Yahoo account holders had been stolen. Yahoo did not immediately respond to the Reuters report. A chief rival for global email, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said it had not been approached by the intelligence agencies. “We’ve never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: ‘No way,’ ” Aaron Stein, a Google spokesman, said in a statement posted online. Another large tech firm, Twitter, also weighed in, but without clarifying whether it had received a directive aimed at intercepting communications. “Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said in a statement. Civil and human rights groups directed their criticism not at Yahoo but at the U.S. government, saying its request had undermined trust in the internet. “The government appears to have compelled Yahoo to conduct precisely the type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit,” said Patrick Toomey, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is deeply disappointing that Yahoo declined to challenge this sweeping surveillance order, because customers are counting on technology companies to stand up to novel spying demands in court.” The alleged Yahoo collaboration with intelligence agencies caused turmoil in the upper ranks of the company, the Reuters report said, and led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer Alex Stamos. Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer bypassed the company’s security team and went to engineers to write the program to siphon off emails in real time for the government, it added. Stamos, who is now the chief security officer for Facebook, offered no immediate comment on the report. The federal government also did not comment. Amnesty International, a London-based rights group, lamented what it called the eroding privacy of internet users and efforts by the U.S. government to “indiscriminately vacuum up the world’s data.” “This is a clear sign that people can trust neither their government nor their service providers to respect their privacy: Only end-to-end encryption that keeps their communications away from prying eyes will do,” said Amnesty’s Sherif Elsayed-Ali, the head of technology and human rights. Yahoo has gotten into hot water before for collaborating with government requests – in China. More than a decade ago, it shared information with the Chinese government that allowed for the jailing of two dissidents, one of whom, Wang Xiaoning, spent a decade in jail. The other dissident, Shi Tao, served a shorter sentence. Yahoo’s partial sale to Verizon is already facing uncertainty over the massive data breach, which took place in 2014. Yahoo apparently did not inform Verizon of the breach, and news of it came out only last month when Yahoo user data was offered for sale on the black market. Legal advocates said they expected Congress to be uneasy over Tuesday’s revelation. “If Yahoo is indeed scanning the content of all of its customers’ emails at the NSA’s behest, that would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment,” said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. “It’s also a violation of customers’ privacy and trust. It’s disturbing to learn that the NSA was secretly expanding its surveillance reach at the very same time Congress was attempting to rein it in,” added Goitein, who is co-director of the center’s Liberty and National Security Program. Privacy has been a major issue in Washington since former NSA and CIA contractor Edward Snowden leaked top-secret information about National Security Agency monitoring of Americans’ email and cellphone use in 2013. Congress ended one formerly secret program after the revelations. The issue of privacy also pitted the FBI against the tech giant Apple after the FBI sought to force Apple to circumvent security settings on a phone that had been used by one of the killers at a holiday party last year in San Bernardino, California. Apple refused a judge’s order that it do so. The impasse was resolved when the FBI allowed a company that said it had developed a way to bypass the security settings to hack into the phone. Not surprisingly, Snowden, who now lives in Russia, was among those urging Yahoo Mail clients to abandon the service. “Use @Yahoo? They secretly scanned everything you ever wrote, far beyond what law requires. Close your account today,” Snowden tweeted. “Any major email service not clearly, categorically denying this tomorrow – without careful phrasing – is as guilty as Yahoo,” Snowden said in another tweet. Tim Johnson: [phone# redacted], @timjohnson4 --30-- With links: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/arti...
It's noted in the article that Twitter did a FISA/FISC Glomar: "“Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said in a statement." On 10/04/2016 06:46 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/04/2016 02:30 PM, jim bell wrote:
Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for US intelligence-sources http://dailym.ai/2dOI1gj via http://dailym.ai/android
I wonder if the execs who approved this or someone on Y!'s legal team who advised them to comply is secretly on Google's payroll or plans to 'jump ship' into a BIG raise.
Rr
With links: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/arti...
By Tim Johnson [email redacted]
Civil and human rights groups issued denunciations and some cybersecurity experts urged their clients to stop using the popular Yahoo Mail service after a news agency reported Tuesday that the internet service provider had secretly scanned hundreds of millions of clients’ emails at the behest of U.S. intelligence agencies.
The report by the Reuters news service said Yahoo complied with a classified U.S. government directive last year that demanded that it scan all incoming emails of its users for certain phrases. The report said Yahoo’s engineers wrote a program that complied with the blanket spying request.
“Enough is enough. It’s time to close your Yahoo account,” Graham Cluley, a British cybersecurity expert, tweeted following the report.
The report was the second piece of challenging news in recent days for the Sunnyvale, California, company as it attempts to finalize a $4.8 billion sale of its core business to Verizon. On Sept. 22, Yahoo acknowledged that the passwords of 500 million Yahoo account holders had been stolen.
Yahoo did not immediately respond to the Reuters report. A chief rival for global email, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said it had not been approached by the intelligence agencies.
“We’ve never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: ‘No way,’ ” Aaron Stein, a Google spokesman, said in a statement posted online.
Another large tech firm, Twitter, also weighed in, but without clarifying whether it had received a directive aimed at intercepting communications.
“Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said in a statement.
Civil and human rights groups directed their criticism not at Yahoo but at the U.S. government, saying its request had undermined trust in the internet.
“The government appears to have compelled Yahoo to conduct precisely the type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit,” said Patrick Toomey, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is deeply disappointing that Yahoo declined to challenge this sweeping surveillance order, because customers are counting on technology companies to stand up to novel spying demands in court.”
The alleged Yahoo collaboration with intelligence agencies caused turmoil in the upper ranks of the company, the Reuters report said, and led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer Alex Stamos.
Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer bypassed the company’s security team and went to engineers to write the program to siphon off emails in real time for the government, it added.
Stamos, who is now the chief security officer for Facebook, offered no immediate comment on the report. The federal government also did not comment.
Amnesty International, a London-based rights group, lamented what it called the eroding privacy of internet users and efforts by the U.S. government to “indiscriminately vacuum up the world’s data.”
“This is a clear sign that people can trust neither their government nor their service providers to respect their privacy: Only end-to-end encryption that keeps their communications away from prying eyes will do,” said Amnesty’s Sherif Elsayed-Ali, the head of technology and human rights.
Yahoo has gotten into hot water before for collaborating with government requests – in China. More than a decade ago, it shared information with the Chinese government that allowed for the jailing of two dissidents, one of whom, Wang Xiaoning, spent a decade in jail. The other dissident, Shi Tao, served a shorter sentence.
Yahoo’s partial sale to Verizon is already facing uncertainty over the massive data breach, which took place in 2014. Yahoo apparently did not inform Verizon of the breach, and news of it came out only last month when Yahoo user data was offered for sale on the black market.
Legal advocates said they expected Congress to be uneasy over Tuesday’s revelation.
“If Yahoo is indeed scanning the content of all of its customers’ emails at the NSA’s behest, that would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment,” said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
“It’s also a violation of customers’ privacy and trust. It’s disturbing to learn that the NSA was secretly expanding its surveillance reach at the very same time Congress was attempting to rein it in,” added Goitein, who is co-director of the center’s Liberty and National Security Program.
Privacy has been a major issue in Washington since former NSA and CIA contractor Edward Snowden leaked top-secret information about National Security Agency monitoring of Americans’ email and cellphone use in 2013. Congress ended one formerly secret program after the revelations.
The issue of privacy also pitted the FBI against the tech giant Apple after the FBI sought to force Apple to circumvent security settings on a phone that had been used by one of the killers at a holiday party last year in San Bernardino, California. Apple refused a judge’s order that it do so. The impasse was resolved when the FBI allowed a company that said it had developed a way to bypass the security settings to hack into the phone.
Not surprisingly, Snowden, who now lives in Russia, was among those urging Yahoo Mail clients to abandon the service. “Use @Yahoo? They secretly scanned everything you ever wrote, far beyond what law requires. Close your account today,” Snowden tweeted.
“Any major email service not clearly, categorically denying this tomorrow – without careful phrasing – is as guilty as Yahoo,” Snowden said in another tweet.
Tim Johnson: [phone# redacted], @timjohnson4
--30--
With links: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/arti...
From: Razer <rayzer@riseup.net
"“Federal law prohibits us from answering your question, and we’re currently suing the Justice Department for the ability to disclose more information about government requests,” Twitter spokesman Nu Wexler said in a statement."
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law. While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law anticipated this. (In part, because American law doesn't usually pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the information LEGALLY, possibly outside America. Jim Bell
From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries. American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
| | | | | | | | | | | Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | | | | ×
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:26:53 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so.
The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in territories 'belonging' to other mafias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law.
...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The subjection has little to do with which point in space the subjects might be accidentaly occupying. If an american subject says something the government doesn't like or that 'threatens' 'national' 'security' he will be considered a 'traitor' and dealt with accordingly. Just ask snowden, who is not standing on a territory claimed by the US mafia-government. Or perhaps if an 'american' says something the gov't doesn't like, he would be be treated like an 'enemy combatant' or somesuch crazy jargon. Oh, look here... "Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants" https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-u-s-citizens-can-be-held-as-enemy-combata... "Yes, U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants"
While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law anticipated this. (In part, because American law doesn't usually pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the information LEGALLY, possibly outside America. Jim Bell
From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries. American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | |
|
|
×
On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote:
...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The subjection has little to do with which point in space the subjects might be accidentaly occupying.
I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least) are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in the US. Rr
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 02:26:53 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so.
The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in territories 'belonging' to other mafias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law.
...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The subjection has little to do with which point in space the subjects might be accidentaly occupying.
If an american subject says something the government doesn't like or that 'threatens' 'national' 'security' he will be considered a 'traitor' and dealt with accordingly. Just ask snowden, who is not standing on a territory claimed by the US mafia-government. Or perhaps if an 'american' says something the gov't doesn't like, he would be be treated like an 'enemy combatant' or somesuch crazy jargon.
Oh, look here...
"Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants"
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf
http://www.aei.org/publication/yes-u-s-citizens-can-be-held-as-enemy-combata...
"Yes, U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants"
While it is conceivable that Congress could re-write the relevant law to prohibit somebody from travelling for the purpose of such a disclosure, I think it's unlikely that the current law anticipated this. (In part, because American law doesn't usually pretend to be able to prohibit freedom of speech, and less so, the freedom of speech of people in foreign lands.)Somebody should tell this corporate fools that they should have their high-priced attorneys investigation this, and figure out a way to disclose the information LEGALLY, possibly outside America. Jim Bell
From the Wikipedia article cited above:"Generally, the U.S. founding fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes introduced what came to be known as the "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries. American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in foreign lands, such as inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain.[22] In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise.Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | |
|
|
×
On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 20:07 -0700, Razer wrote:
I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least) are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in the US.
That's what I was going for. You said it better than I did... -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
From: Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> On 10/04/2016 08:07 PM, juan wrote:
...but I don't think the mafia known as 'american government' would agree with that. Subjects, hostages or 'citizens' of the american government are, well, subjected to that mafia. The subjection has little to do with which point in space the subjects might be accidentaly occupying.
I was going to bring up the concept that corporate officers (at least) are really OWNED by the corporation that employs them and the US government probably considers them as 'being in the US' no matter where they go as long as they're in the employ of a corporation chartered in the US.
That's an interesting take on the matter, but I don't think you could find sufficient legal precedent to force this issue against the will of the (vacationing?) employee, or the will of the stay-at-home corporation. Remember, I'm not even talking about an employee who wants to leak the information against the will of the corporation: I'm speculating that the corporation WANTS some employee to leak it, but to do so using a means not obviously in violation of the requirements of the subpoena/court order. Since a corporation generally is entitled to communicate information to its employees (who may not be in the U.S., or ever were in the U.S.), that's a powerful tool to launch the relevant information beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Jim Bell
The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction"
A double criminal absurdity. The mafia known as government has no real 'jurisdiction' in the territory they usurp, let alone in territories 'belonging' to other mafias.
On this, at least, we can agree completely. The only thing I would add is that this is largely a recent phenomenon due to the ability for large enough governments to have truly global reach. Power will exert itself as far as it can.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +0000, jim bell wrote:
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law.
The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún. I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so.
Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so.
Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for.
It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not ever. Moderator, please remove Juan from the list. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so.
Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for.
It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not ever.
Well, I'm not moderator but I'll try to mediate this, here. I get what Juan is saying, and I understand what you are saying. Here is the disconnect: It seems to me that Juan is looking at this entirely.. functionally. Functionally, the government suppresses information for its own interests. All of them do. He is disregarding the belief system of Americans, and the cultural identity and beliefs that this involves. What is American, is what America, as a whole, does. To be American is to enslave blacks, bomb brown folks, and generally make a great mess of things, and worse - to be proud of that mess. You are using the term "American" quite differently. You're not using it functionally, you're using it, forgive the term.. mythologically. There is the cultural identity of "American" which sees itself as being about freedom, natural rights and so on. For you, these are ideals, that Americans strive for, and you acknowledge that in the past your country fell short of, and that you have (and perhaps always will have) more to do. For you, it is totally possible for America to be UN-American. To Juan, this is a logical absurdity. I think I got that about right. I've been fucken with this dude, exploring how he thinks for like two weeks now. It's like some weird catharsis for me because I used to think quite similarly.
Moderator, please remove Juan from the list.
I suspect you're beign ironical?
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:07:52 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 00:29 -0300, juan wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 22:17:36 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
I do agree in principle that the information needs to get out there, and for the US government to try to keep it secret is at least a bit un-American, if not flagrantly so.
Au contraire. It's 100% american. That's what you stand for.
It is 100% UN-American and it is NOT what I stand for. Not now, not ever.
Well, I'm not moderator but I'll try to mediate this, here.
I get what Juan is saying, and I understand what you are saying. Here is the disconnect:
It seems to me that Juan is looking at this entirely.. functionally. Functionally, the government suppresses information for its own interests. All of them do. He is disregarding the belief system of Americans, and the cultural identity and beliefs that this involves. What is American, is what America, as a whole, does. To be American is to enslave blacks, bomb brown folks, and generally make a great mess of things, and worse - to be proud of that mess.
You are using the term "American" quite differently. You're not using it functionally, you're using it, forgive the term.. mythologically. There is the cultural identity of "American" which sees itself as being about freedom, natural rights and so on. For you, these are ideals, that Americans strive for, and you acknowledge that in the past your country fell short of, and that you have (and perhaps always will have) more to do.
For you, it is totally possible for America to be UN-American. To Juan, this is a logical absurdity.
Thanks xorcist, but you got it wrong...again! =) Well, you got it half right actually. Yes, to be 'american' is to morally support all sorts of outrageous attacks against natural rights...in the name of natural rights (that's at least done by the american jingos articulate enough to talk about natural rights, prolly not something a scumbag like quinn can do). But it is possible for a piece of shit like quinn to be un-american too. What did he do, like a good american? Ask for censorship. Bue he could have been un-american instead and could have been a decent defender of free speech. But no, quinn is the quintessential fascist americunt and also a torbot. And he's been consistently wanting to censor this list (with a few accomplices from the tor-pentagon-projet) for a while.
I think I got that about right. I've been fucken with this dude, exploring how he thinks for like two weeks now.
So you actually haven't followed previous posts from that piece of shit quinn and the other american tor gang members.
It's like some weird catharsis for me because I used to think quite similarly.
I don't think so. To use an analogy, since you like them so much. It's like you told me that first you were a kkkristian, then regained your senses and became anti-clerical, but THEN, went BACK to sucking jesus cock and FINALLY learned the REAL truth.
Moderator, please remove Juan from the list.
I suspect you're beign ironical?
Not really. He's trolling, but if he had his way he would 'remove' me. He's one of the shitbags responsible for censorship in the tor project.
From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +0000, jim bell wrote:
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law.
The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún. Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the court order somewhere within America, as opposed to an individual outside the jurisdiction of that court. The thing could go as far as the company hiring a foreign attorney, communicating with him by Internet (or courier, etc), with the foreign attorney announcing the fact of the information. It would be very difficult to formulate a theory that a company isn't entitled to communicate with an attorney who was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., or that the U.S. just happened to have legal power to prevent that attorney from speaking. It would be quickly seen as a First Amendment issue, and would fail. Jim Bell
On 10/04/2016 08:49 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +0000, jim bell wrote:
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction> I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law.
The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún.
Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the court order somewhere within America, as opposed to an individual outside the jurisdiction of that court. The thing could go as far as the company hiring a foreign attorney, communicating with him by Internet (or courier, etc), with the foreign attorney announcing the fact of the information. It would be very difficult to formulate a theory that a company isn't entitled to communicate with an attorney who was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., or that the U.S. just happened to have legal power to prevent that attorney from speaking. It would be quickly seen as a First Amendment issue, and would fail.
Jim Bell
Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the court order somewhere within America,
If the leak came from an IP address based at the corporation's office no matter what country it's in (assuming capitalist-friendly), I'd suspect that a local court would give the US jurisdiction. Disclaimer: I AM NOT nor have I ever been, a corporate lloigor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloigor_(Cthulhu_Mythos_race) Rr "In the 1975 The Illuminatus! Trilogy, the lloigor are mentioned as the gods of the aboriginal natives of the People's Republic of Fernando Po(o), as well as the original gods of Atlantis. Here, the term appears to be synonymous with Great Old One—for example, H. P. Lovecraft's creation Yog-Sothoth is called a lloigor."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/technology/yahoo-email-tech-companies-gove... ] Yahoo was ordered last year to search incoming emails for the digital “signature” of a communications method used by a state-sponsored, foreign terrorist organization, according to a government official familiar with the matter. The Justice Department obtained the order from a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. To comply, Yahoo used a modified version of its existing systems that were scanning all incoming email traffic for spam, malware and images of child pornography. The system stored and made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation a copy of any messages it found that contained the digital signature. - - - this is a bit peculiar, because what if the communication method that yahoo implements for transport utilizes a 'signature' that you can string-match on? not many. Mujahideen Secrets, etc had a custom armor header line specific to the application, https://www.recordedfuture.com/al-qaeda-encryption-technology-part-2/. maybe the answer? On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 10/04/2016 08:49 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 02:26 +0000, jim bell wrote:
Generally speaking, American Federal laws are not applicable outside the United States (and its territories) unless the law explicitly says so. The term is called "extraterritorial jurisdiction" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction> I am not aware of anything that would prohibit a person in one of these companies to visit Canada, or Mexico, or perhaps even a foreign embassy, or some other nation, and then publicly announcing the existence of this secret surveillance, immune from the reach of the law.
The problem is that the company's operations in the US will remain under US jurisdiction, and that is the most likely avenue of enforcement--against the company, not the individuals leaking the info from the shores of Vancouver or Cancún.
Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the court order somewhere within America, as opposed to an individual outside the jurisdiction of that court. The thing could go as far as the company hiring a foreign attorney, communicating with him by Internet (or courier, etc), with the foreign attorney announcing the fact of the information. It would be very difficult to formulate a theory that a company isn't entitled to communicate with an attorney who was outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., or that the U.S. just happened to have legal power to prevent that attorney from speaking. It would be quickly seen as a First Amendment issue, and would fail.
Jim Bell
Well, then the government would have to argue that the corporation violated the court order somewhere within America,
If the leak came from an IP address based at the corporation's office no matter what country it's in (assuming capitalist-friendly), I'd suspect that a local court would give the US jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: I AM NOT nor have I ever been, a corporate lloigor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloigor_(Cthulhu_Mythos_race)
Rr
"In the 1975 The Illuminatus! Trilogy, the lloigor are mentioned as the gods of the aboriginal natives of the People's Republic of Fernando Po(o), as well as the original gods of Atlantis. Here, the term appears to be synonymous with Great Old One—for example, H. P. Lovecraft's creation Yog-Sothoth is called a lloigor."
participants (6)
-
jim bell -
juan -
Kindra Meow -
Razer -
Shawn K. Quinn -
xorcist＠sigaint.org