NSA Spying Relies on AT&T'S "Extreme Willingness to Help"

[John Young]

Law will always be bent to favor authorities, that is what law
does and why lawyers are given special protection and privileges
not given to the citizenry. What NSA, ATT, Cisco, Oracle, Microsoft,
RSA, Google, ISPs and the others have been doing, and will
continue doing, is completely legal and, if insistent, constitutional
(the ur law favoring natsec authorities), so it is misleading to claim
otherwise.

Mark Klein, like Snowden and most other leakers, has been co-opted
by lawyers, civil libertarians and wealthy donors to speak to their scripts.
If not, then to the poor house dogs.

Nothing wrong with being scriptedly misleading, that is what media
and law do to whatever raw remarks are handed, leaked, "Secure
Drop"-boxed to them ("at own risk of sources").

Nor anything misleading about promising strong encryption and
surefire cybersecurity, despite repeated failures, backtracks,
apologias, tweakings, full disclosures, that is what they do "because
the enemy does" and "we're doing the best we can." No, not national
defense grade protection, are you nuts, RTFM.

Nor is it misleading about civil liberty, privacy policy, anonymization,
open source, HTTPS, the current cipher-sec civil-lib kaboodle.
That is necessary for their survival in the marketplace. "That is
what competitors do and become rich at it, we're sick of being
middling strapped."

What might piss off a pristine, completely guiltless humanoid
coder is the brazen duplicity of the opponents of the NSA cartel,
the enjoyment of perks of being on both sides, wearing dual hats,
citizen-official, dissident-loyalist, open-closed, public servant raking
in high fees for duping the public about forever known-to-be-faulty
comsec, reneging on assurances, duo-dancing on pinheads at
comsec fora with mutually celebrated opponents, advising governments,
tesitfying for governments, taking government contracts, betraying
confidences, fork-tongues a flutter.

At 12:27 PM 8/18/2015, you wrote:


>On 08/16/2015 09:47 AM, Shelley wrote:
> > Nothing we didn't know or expect, just more confirmation/proof that
> > AT&T & Verizon are all too eager to get on their knees for the NSA.
> >
> > 
> https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willingness-to-help
> >
> >
> > Also worth a look: how they connected the dots, supporting documents.
> > 
> https://www.propublica.org/article/a-trail-of-evidence-leading-to-atts-partnership-with-the-nsa
> >
> >
> > (Apologies for not including the article text, I'm currently mobile.)
> >
> > -S
> >
> >
> >
>
>Institute for Public Accuracy has issued a press release from AT&T
>whistleblower Mark Klein. Klein was the AT&T technician who blew the
>whistle on AT&T’s cooperation with the NSA in 2006.
>
>http://www.accuracy.org/release/att-whistleblower-on-companys-partnership-with-nsa/
>
> > “The documents prove I was right, and if a court had been willing to
> > allow the Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit against AT&T to go
> > forward, we would have won. But Congress knowingly put a retroactive
> > pseudo-‘legal’ stamp on the violations of law and the Constitution,
> > and the courts accepted it. Both parties are to blame, all three
> > branches of government are culpable.
> >
> > “I’d gotten my story out through the New York Times in April 2006
> > after the Los Angeles Times had killed it. The editor who killed the
> > story was Dean Baquet — who is now executive editor at the New York Times.
> >
> > “Obama had campaigned against immunizing the telcos, but by the time
> > the vote happened in 2008, he had sewn up the nomination and switched
> > sides. It was a betrayal even before he got to the White House.
> >
> > “The entire congressional leadership pushed this, especially the ‘gang
> > of eight’ who were the ones who actually knew what the immunity was
> > about. My own senator, Dianne Feinstein, who was on the intelligence
> > committee, wouldn’t even speak with me, she was all about covering up
> > for the NSA.
> >
> > “Many in congress who voted for the immunity blindly voted to immunize
> > a crime details of which they didn’t know or didn’t want to know.
> >
> > “It wasn’t just AT&T of course, it was that the Bush administration
> > had brazenly violated FISA and of course the Constitution. They didn’t
> > have a legal leg to stand on, which is why they needed the immunity.”
>
>There's more, mostly a sitrep, on site.
>
>RR
>
>