Slashdot Mirror
EFF Interviewed About Their Case Against AT&T
ntk writes "Glenn Greenwald from Salon has a long, informative interview with Cindy Cohn, the EFF attorney leading the suit against AT&T over their warrantless wiretapping of their customers. It talks about why the White House is pushing for retroactive immunity against the telco, what the suit has revealed so far, and how little Congressfolk appear to know about how Internet traffic is being monitored."
In particular, QWest and Verizon. Has nobody noticed the 100 Billion+ telcom award that went to the 3? Think that the FCC award it to them for their high bids (they were the TOP bidder).
Required reading here.
Look at how gleefully they advertise exploiting their trusted thiry-party (SSL Certificate Authority) status.
I think we need to consider switching all our browsers to a more trustworthy CA.
I agree with what you said. The same technique also works to evade the great firewall of China.
The mentioning of OpenSSL also implies that HTTP should go over TLS whenever possible, as long as you trust the website for properly handling your data. That means websites should provide an HTTPS version. There is a problem, though. Many websites on the web are name-based virtual hosts. SSL doesn't work on them because you have to exchange the certificate, which is site specific, before sending the Host header that decides which site you want.
I once had a signature.
just go to Salon.com and enter "EFF" in their search box. The article actually comes up first (and yes, I use Firefox with NoScript, which another poster complained about.)
The Constitution allows the President to suspend civil liberties (even habeas corpus) in cases of warfare, or for national defense. And the interesting thing is that the determination of national defense purposes lies with the executive branch.
Can you provide a citation on that? Article I, Section 9 states "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." -- but that is in Article I, which lays out the powers and limitations of Congress, not the President. Article II describes the role of the President, and I honestly can't see anything there that backs up your claim. (Not to mention that the US is neither in a state of rebellion nor being invaded at the moment.)
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
To tell the truth, I'm not sure I can think of a single example [of armed revolution] that's really worked out well -- and the ascending scale of horror represented by the English Civil War, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution show how easily they can work out badly.
True. However, in some cases government replacement can be accomplished through force of social pressure without recourse to armed conflict. You should look up the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic. Most of the USA forgot about the man after the Bosnia conflict, though he was still the dictator of Serbia when we left. But afterwards, he was removed by a popular revolution, basically orchestrated by a group of students who coordinated immense popular opposition to the government.
Otpor! (Resistance!) flooded the streets in protest and demanded he step down entirely so they could hold elections. They managed to do it with such overwhelming force of numbers that conflict was simply not an option: you can't order the army to shoot everyone and send them home when the whole damn country is in the street.
Milosevic, one of the last of the 20th century's string of nasty/immoral/brutal dictators, stepped down without a single shot being fired. So there is a possibility for nonviolent change to become a more common option in the 21st century.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.