UPS Denies Helping the NSA 'Interdict' Packages 207
An anonymous reader writes "When Glenn Greenwald's book came out recently, one of the most startling revelations was that the NSA has been intercepting shipments of networking gear to add spyware. Cisco was one of the vendors whose gear was altered, and now their shipping provider has spoken up about it: 'UPS, which Cisco has used since 1997 to ship hardware to customers around the world, said on Thursday that it did not voluntarily allow government officials to inspect its packages unless it is required to do so by law. "UPS' long-standing policy is to require a legal court-ordered process, such as a subpoena, before responding to any third-party requests," UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross wrote in an e-mail to TheBlot Magazine. "UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments." In a follow-up e-mail, Ross said UPS had no knowledge of similar orders from the FBI, CIA or any other federal agency.' That sounds like carefully parsed language to me. 'Did not voluntarily,' 'unless it is required to do so by law.' Perhaps they're bound by a National Security Letter?"
Guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guilty (Score:5, Informative)
There is a huge difference between 'yeah, we will voluntarily do XYZ when asked' and 'we will comply with the law when required'.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As it has become more and more clear that the Executive Branch believes that we are not under a rule of law but a rule of men, then it becomes more and more clear that "comply with the law" and the Executive Branch's "I am the law" basically makes all those "we will comply with the law' equivalent to "voluntarily do XYZ". I mean, sure, I have no doubt that the telecoms are run by
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are trying to make it obvious that they have been coerced into cooperating with the NSA using the only language they can legally apply?
Re:Guilty (Score:4, Informative)
Reading the rest of the article (yeah, who does that) has more of the little gems.
The quotes fro the headlines were from a PR drone. They write PR, but they don't know the actual secrets. They are not the ones who are called in to a private executive meeting with the legal team.
When they question Mark Chandler, the executive general counsel who does hear the legal secrets:
“We ought to be able to count on the government tonot interfere with the lawful delivery of our products in the form in which we have manufactured them,” Chandler wrote. “To do otherwise, and to violate legitimate privacy rights of individuals and institutions around the world, undermines confidence in our industry.”
We ought to trust... people need to trust... because that is good for business.
Chandler didn’t say if the company knew of the NSA interdiction program, nor did the executive acknowledge if Cisco participated in the interception of packages delivered to certain customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Interpretation of carefully worded equivocations is important specifically in this context of American corporations which are being compelled to do certain things and then not speak of them.
Is there anything close RFC 2119 for the language that these companies are using. Or can we make one?
We could help companies create stronger press releases and we could give journalists a primary source for parsing bullshit statements like "we are not collecting".
Would anyone like to help start this project with me?
Re:Guilty (Score:4, Informative)
Yup. "required by law" is called an NSL.
And you aren't allowed to talk about it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they went on to state that they are not aware of any such court orders for their tech shipments.
As I read it they are outright claiming that they have not allowed the NSA to inspect any of their Cisco shipments.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not voluntarily unless required by law"
The phrase isn't a direct statement from the company PR but from an indirect quote ("said that"):
"UPS, which Cisco has used since 1997 to ship hardware to customers around the world, said on Thursday that it did not voluntarily allow government officials to inspect its packages unless it is required to do so by law."
Sloppy writing not doublespeak
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you wonder if the new UPS employment applications will ask if you are an agent of a foreign or domestic government. Also it's interesting that with the brouhaha over the NSA's tapping Merkle's cell phone that the Deutsche Post that they couldn't just flat out say "No."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
who is "they" that would want to say "no"?
"they" would be,
Re: (Score:2)
What if the required by law, either in general or on a case by case basis, includes "claim it never happened"?
Re:Guilty (Score:4, Informative)
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
Uh, no. I'd rather know about it so then we can at least attempt to do something about it. Not knowing would do nothing to resolve the issue.
And it's quite the serious issue. Where we used to have only the government legally allowed to sit behind the bullshit excuse of "cannot confirm or deny", they have now expanded that standard legal waiver (via NSLs) to every American corporation they touch.
And the secret monitoring will be legally allowed to continue without your knowledge. Sorry, but until they dismantle secret courts, Snowdens revelations haven't done a damn thing to change policy or weaken the NSAs capability at all.
Re:Guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the quote from the article:
“UPS’ long-standing policy is to require a legal court-ordered process, such as a subpoena, before responding to any third-party requests,” UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross wrote in an e-mail to TheBlot Magazine. “UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments.”
When you parse the language and translate it from PR-speak/legalese, you realize that this is basically a meaningless statement. The first sentence is boilerplate BS, and has nothing to do with the allegation at hand at all. "We have a long-standing policy not to do X" *IS NOT* the same as saying "We didn't do X" (though that's what they want you to believe they're saying, of course). The second part of the statement only tells us that the NSA didn't get a court order to do this, *NOT* that UPS didn't let them do it anyway without a court order.
And what the whole statement is absolutely NOT is an actual denial. In short, if UPS *REALLY* didn't let the NSA intercept their packages, they could have released a very simple statement saying "UPS did not and does not let the NSA intercept our packages." What they released was some vague boilerplate BS that basically says fuck all.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were going to lie about it they would have no need to use such tricky wording; they would simply come out and lie. I dont know of any reason there would be consequences for lying in a PR statement; lying isnt illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? That is not what I interpreted it to mean. What I saw was this:
We deeply respect your privacy and we want to deliver your goods unmolested by everyone except the lazy loader who throws your box around but does not open it... and of course for subpoenas, but you already knew that. What you did not not know is that we are in actuality being forced, via National Security letters, to allow the Federal Government to molest your packages.
Definitely not meaningless. The meaning is clear as day. They are being
Re: (Score:2)
Because lawyers were involved. That's how big corps work.
Re:Guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
Maybe that's the entire point. They're not allowed to complain out loud because of an NSL but they can make it clear what's going on and that it's hurting them with a statement like this.
It's long past time for us to decide our government should not be keeping secrets. They clearly cause far more harm than they help. At worst, some criminals get away. How does that saying go? It's better to free 100 guilty men than imprison 1 innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
How does that saying go? It's better to free 100 guilty men than imprison 1 innocent?
That's no longer really true. According to the NOT.ONE.MORE movement, we should impinge the rights of 100 in order to forbid the 1 potential criminal to take action. Even if impinging on their rights in the end may have absolutely no impact.
In the end ALL our freedoms will be destroyed by FEAR because we're demanding security and, well, fuck liberty.
And in the end the governments just giving us what we want. So what if it happened to be executed by secret laws, using secret courts that issue secret orders
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of helps if you keep it in context and include this part:
"UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
No, we should be applauding this. Look at the recent 'IBM' denial. They are very specific about what they're not doing, making it plainly obvious what they are doing without violating their NSL.
Re:Guilty... NSL (Score:2)
Or... they could have received a National Security Letter.
By law, they have to deny the existence of the letter and its contents.
By law, if they have received a NSL, they have to say that they are "not aware of receiving any court orders or subpoenas from the NSA".
See, perfectly clear denial.
Re:Guilty (Score:4, Funny)
No need for UPS to help (Score:5, Interesting)
If the device is made (or packaged in the US) and is being shipped overseas, the NSA can grab it at customs, there is nothing the shipper can do about it.
Re:No need for UPS to help (Score:4, Interesting)
Many (all?) custom's warehouses are operated by third-party companies. This will be a little bit more complicated than inspecting luggage. However, the companies (subsidiaries) that operate those warehouses get their entire revenue from allowing people to transport goods across borders. I suspect the NSA can get away with almost anything in that environment.
Re:No need for UPS to help (Score:4, Informative)
When you say Custom's warehouse, I think you actually mean the two types of regulated facilities which are bonded and foreign-trade zone warehouses.
Bonded warehouses are only allowed to store imported goods. The importer files customs entry forms for the goods prior to storing them within the warehouse and must paid the owed duties prior to removing the goods from the warehouse. This is the most common type. Basically it is where you put things while you pay your entry fees.
Foriegn-trade zone (FTZ) warehouses allow both domestic and foreign cargo to be stored. Small manufacturing can be performed within the FTZ too. You would use this if you plan to re-export the goods or the product you manufacture have a mixture of domestic and foreign parts and it would be cheaper to import the finished product than each individual part. The goods are not considered imported until they leave the warehouse for a domestic address. A lot of global manufacturers have FTZ facilities and despite what the parent comment implied, this facility is operated by the manufacturer or a contracted agent for the manufacturer. It is not a place where customs or the NSA can freely enter and have access to any of the goods.
Yes I used to make a living in this field.
BINGO! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The boxes going international go through customs on site at the UPS hubs.
The NSA could achieve this by accessing the packages at customs without alerting UPS directly.
The would only have to break out an NSL because we can. to make it less of a hassle, or just to flex muscle.
Really an NSL would be detrimental to secrecy, the NSA is clearly aware that secrets keep better when you
*don't tell anyone*
Rather than when you ask them to keep it o
Re: (Score:3)
Or they could have compromised UPS or Cisco's databases.
Can NSA serve National Security Letters? (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse my ignorance, I am not from the U.S., but I thought only the F.B.I. could serve National Security Letters. Can the NSA also serve them?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That information is classified.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately I was at the grocery store when the drone struck, so no loss of life. But damn, did it leave a smoking hole in the ground where my house was.
I'm really going to miss my cat.....
Re:Can NSA serve National Security Letters? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be really interesting if, in the yet unrevealed Snowden documents, there are lists of specific Americans targeted for spying, much in the way it was revealed they were listening in on Merkel's cell phone.
Re:Can NSA serve National Security Letters? (Score:4, Informative)
I thought only the F.B.I. could serve National Security Letters. Can the NSA also serve them?
Even if they couldn't (and they won't say whether this is the case or nor), they could easily get the FBI to do it for them.
We the public are never going to know either say (without another heroic whistleblower), since even the process is a secret. Maybe we can find out the truth in about 75 years when they declassify it.
Weaponized products don't sell (Score:5, Insightful)
When you weaponize U.S. technology products to the extent that the NSA has, don't be surprised when no one wants to buy those products in the future.
What foreign CEO or government official wants U.S. technology in control of their banking industry? Their communications infrastructure? Their manufacuring base? Their electrical power and distribution network?
Can you imagine the U.S. response if the critical infrastructure items such as those listed above were found out to be backdoor and controllable at will by the Russians? Chinese? Indians?
The U.S. has a serious reputation problem right now. We need to stop this nonsense immediately if we expect our tech industry to survive.
It takes a second to destroy a reputation - it takes years, sometimes decades to build it back.
Re:Weaponized products don't sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Also Snowden's Fault (Score:2)
And of course they are blaming the economic damage on getting caught as opposed to, well, what they were doing.
Of *course* they are. They're responsible for the consequences--but they also are right, Snowden's whistleblowing was also a cause. He has (with them) done probably billions of dollars of harm to the US tech industry.
Without him, it wouldn't have happened. Without them, it wouldn't have happened. They both did it for motives that they believed justified the cost.
Re:Also Snowden's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
No. A person exposing a crime is not responsible for the consequences.
A guy starts driving home from a bar while being completely hammered. Someone sees him swerving on the road and calls the cops. The drunk driver can't go back and sue to the person who reported him for damages stemming from the DUI fine and loss of driving privileges.
Eventually what the NSA would have been found out, and the piper would have to paid. Snowden did us ALL a huge favor by getting this out in the open and hopefully stopped.
Stop covering for these asshats. The damage to the tech industry is on the NSA, and maybe on us for allowing such secretive government agencies to exist in the first place. The founding fathers would have been absolutely aghast at the IDEA of a NSL.
Also Snowden's Fault (Score:2)
That's as stupid as blaming the police for the crime rate because if the police didn't write up the reports the crimes wouldn't be counted.
Possibly... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Perhaps they're bound by a National Security Letter?"
Maybe. It could also be exactly what they say - When presented by an actual warrant to intercept items (EG for goods purchased with stolen credit cards or contraband) they follow it. That WOULD include national security incidents too but, as they say "UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments" and I'd think a gag order would prevent them from affirming or denying the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
""UPS is not aware of any court orders from the NSA seeking to inspect technology-related shipments" [Emphasis Mine]
The National Security Agency (NSA) [wikipedia.org] is a U.S. intelligence agency responsible for providing the United States government with encrypted communications (information assurance) and the reading of encrypted communications (signals intelligence) of other nations.
The NSA is not and AFAIK, does not contain within it, any Federal Tribunals [wikipedia.org].
As such, the NSA cannot issue a court order [wikipedia.org]. One might assume that other mechanisms can be used to coerce both individuals and/or corporations to submit to the will of the NSA
Re: (Score:2)
In which case talking about it should never be allowed as refusing to either confirm or deny when previously having denied would strongly indicate that a gagging order had been issued.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't matter. If Cisco had modified the devices on premises, Congress would just give them a "get out of jail free" [wikipedia.org] (or really a "STAY out of jail free") card like they did the telecoms.
yeah, whatever (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if they (private companies) secretly allowed it(NSA infiltration) to happen under fear of the NSA using whatever power they have to get the companies shut down if they didn't follow suit. Now that the public has been informed, the companies are using all the plausible deniability they can to prevent lawsuits. In the case of the UPS, I don't think there's any plausible deniability to use...It's not a software system that the NSA could exploit per-se.
Or is it the case these companies really are just as corrupt as the NSA?
I really don't see any other alternative, unless you want to argue that Snowdens docs were fake (Highly unlikely).
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if they (private companies) secretly allowed it(NSA infiltration) to happen under fear of the NSA using whatever power they have to get the companies shut down if they didn't follow suit.
Companies like Microsoft have as much power over the US government as the government has over them.
Microsoft could firewall off access to Windows Update and Windows Activation servers for all US government IP addresses. I'm sure there is something in the Microsoft EULA that would allow them to do this legally. Sure, the government could work around the issue, but the reality is that it would be a lot less work just to drop whatever pressure they were putting on Microsoft.
Physical interdiction of trucks? (Score:2)
Would the NSA be bold enough to physically interdict trucks? Guys with badges and guns tell you they need something in your truck, tell you you never saw them and by the way, driver Fred, you did a nice job on that new downstairs bathroom, tile job looks real professional, I'll bet your wife and daughter really like how nice it is there.
Or is it even remotely practical to identify specific package/truck combinations?
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it even remotely practical to identify specific package/truck combinations?
Maybe. But also know who is driving ahead of time and know their address, relatives, etc? Less likely.
Re:Physical interdiction of trucks? (Score:4, Interesting)
So here is a theoretical setup:
1) Identify the route of the target - the company who ordered the part
2) Order a delivery scheduled for the same day to a company earlier in the route
3) Watch the second company, identify the truck number and driver
4) Run a background on the driver to find out family, friends, brand of toilet paper
5) Meet driver en route and perform the stop as above
Re: (Score:2)
Why interdict the trucks? The requirements to be a UPS driver are likely much lower than the requirements to be an NSA agent. Have an agent get hired by UPS as a driver, then have that driver "specially handle" packages headed to certain locations. Unless the package is a rush delivery, is a recipient really going to notice that it took an extra couple hours or even an extra day to travel between Cisco's manufacturing or shipping location and their home or office?
Then just because one UPS employee knows tha
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the package is a rush delivery, is a recipient really going to notice that it took an extra couple hours or even an extra day to travel between Cisco's manufacturing or shipping location and their home or office?
An extra hour, no. An extra day, most definitely.
I get an e-mail the day before any UPS package is going to be delivered to my house. If it doesn't show up the next day, I want to know why. I'm just an individual, not a business. If you are a business, UPS offers a lot more features like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only a small step to confiscate the load from there.
"Or is it even remotely practical to identify specific package/truck combinations?"
Absolutely. Most load information is in computers on both sides, shipping and receiving, as well as the drayage when it goes local from long haul. The trucking firm, truck number, trailer
Looks like some new packaging is needed. (Score:2)
Seems to me that unless the law prohibits it, tech companies will need to start using tamper evident packaging. Then it won't matter if the NSA, CIA, FBI or other 3 letter agencies intercept the product during shipping. Perhaps glitter embedded in varnish painted over critical screws/fasteners, then photographed from various angles and posted to a web page, or emailed to the customer prior to shipping. Then if the item is intercepted the 3 letter agency will have a rather ... difficult ... time bypassing th
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but the tamper evident seals are on the actual item. Not the package. And if customs wants to look at the item, they can easily retrieve the photographs hosted on the manufacture's site. And if they match the tamper evident, randomized seal, then drug hiding is ... not very likely ... unless of course, you wish to believe that the drugs were stashed at the time of manufacture. The reason for sending the photograph to the customer prior to shipping is to prevent a TLA from breaking the seal, tampering, r
National Security Letter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't have any effect on elections. Libertarian candidates have no chance in a world where people care mostly that their unemployment checks are being extended or that they are getting a rebate on their purchase of an electric car or that they get the EIC or that their kid is being treated like a special snowflake by (incompetent) public schools.
Government in the U.S. has been taking freedom away for a long time, sometimes even in the name of "preserving freedom". People who have accepted, and even s
Next time try this: (Score:5, Funny)
"Stories on rearranged routing yielded great overstatement today. For UPS customers keep invaluable. No government necessitated said law!"
OT WARNING (Score:2)
Ship Cisco gear from trustworthy overseas locns (Score:2)
Cisco could make life miserable for the NSA by warehousing its gear in countries that won't cooperate with the US. Non-US orders could be filled from the closest such warehouse.
Non-cooperating countries that spring to mind include Russia (for European orders), China (for Asia), Venezuela (for S. America) and maybe Palestine (for the Middle East and Africa). I don't believe there are any N. American countries that the US can't coerce, so maybe the affected countries should use other network vendors.
The dow
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco could make life miserable for the NSA by warehousing its gear in countries that won't cooperate with the US. Non-US orders could be filled from the closest such warehouse.
Non-cooperating countries that spring to mind include Russia (for European orders), China (for Asia), Venezuela (for S. America) and maybe Palestine (for the Middle East and Africa). I don't believe there are any N. American countries that the US can't coerce, so maybe the affected countries should use other network vendors.
The downside is that delivery times for overseas orders might become quite long :-) and/or spendy.
Most stable countries which don't cooperate with the US are also countries in which relatively small bribes will get you into any warehouse. This would actually be worse. In the US strange people in warehouses would eventually get noticed by somebody- maybe a dockworker, inventory manager, or a forklift operator would start asking questions. In Russia, China, Venezuela, you just pay off everybody who needs paying off.
Geezus, UPS is flat out lying (Score:4, Informative)
In a follow-up e-mail, Ross said UPS had no knowledge of similar orders from the FBI, CIA or any other federal agency.
This just beggars belief. It's well known that all US couriers have security divisions that work with federal and state government agencies. They routinely help with investigations of suspicious packages containing drugs, counterfeit products, explosive materials, firearms, etc.
Here's what one UPS executive, customs and brokerage manager Norman T. Schenk, had to say in a Congressional hearing in 2000 on how to stop illegal drugs from being delivered by mail:
Our partnership with the Customs Service has dramatically ...
curtailed the flow of contraband. Today, Mr. Chairman, we urge
you to ensure that the Customs Service has the 21st century
tools it needs to maintain the extraordinary growth of commerce
in this new millennium. Last year, the United States received
21 million commercial shipments. By 2004, that number is
projected to climb to 50 million. Customs simply cannot inspect
each shipment by hand.
Mr. Chairman, full funding of the new automation system
known as ACE, the Automated Commercial Environment, is
essential for Customs to keep pace with the growth of commerce.
No technology can enable the Customs Service to inspect 50
million shipments, but ACE can help Customs leverage the power
of information to target its inspections efficiently and
precisely.
Our own experience at UPS shows the difference such a
system will make. Our advanced electronic manifesting procedure
provides Customs with extensive information from the
destination of a parcel to a description of its contents on
every package we transport to the United States before it
arrives at a UPS facility.
In addition to our work with Customs, UPS conducts an
aggressive and thorough drug interdiction program of our own.
We train delivery drivers to spot packages that may contain
illegal drugs. We screen for suspicious parcels. We routinely
work with the other law enforcement agencies like the FBI, DEA,
and State and local authorities, including providing them
information about any offender we identify.
So they not work with 3 letter federal agencies routinely, but they do it without the prompting of a subpoena, or NLS.
Re: (Score:2)
If they discover an illegal shipment and DON'T report it, then they become complicit in it's transport.
Who says they were third parties? (Score:4, Interesting)
Vetting National Security Letters (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so the NSL is basically a secret letter, that nobody wants to talk about. How do they (recipients) even know if/when they're legit. It's not like there's a 1-800-DIAL-NSA number to check it out.
What's to stop "shady group X" from getting some serious looking guys with suits, sunglasses, and some fake ID's+forms to drop by the local datacentre and say "OK, we're NSA and we need records/access from this group of servers here. Oh, and you can't talk about this to anyone. Delay us and very bad things will happen to your and/or your business"
Re: (Score:2)
Fear of authority is often used by confidence men. The vast majority of people who see a shiny badge or ID that says "FBI" don't take the time to actually verify that it's legit.
The NSA is an Anti-American Organization (Score:3)
In almost every way The National Security Organization is a lawless, limitless, overreaching mistake, with no applied checks and balanves. The NSA exemplifies the start of what can go wrong.
Of course they're aren't going to admit it..... (Score:2)
Intercept, not interdict (Score:2)
If they interdicted your router you'd never get it.
Sorry (Score:2)
We have no authority to accept or implement NSLs at this company site. Please deliver them as an e-mail attachment to our government compliance department's (publicly readable) server.
Warrant canary for packages (Score:2)
A solution to this was invented centuries ago. Seal the packages of network hardware with tamper-proof seals (something involving smart cards that the NSA can't duplicate) from the manufacture. Make it impossible for the NSA to open the package without making the customer aware the package was opened in transit. If a package was opened in transit, return to sender and Cisco engineers can figure out how the NSA is implanting bugs.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I watched sneakers a couple days ago (it's on netflix) and nearly shit my pants at the end when Robert Redford reveals the magic decryptor box isn't for spying on the russians, it's "for spying on us". (Of course, they meant the NSA was spying on the FBI/CIA but still... future predicted).
Re:Weasel words (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we know the NSA never does anything without a valid court order.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they could have received a National Security Letter which requires them to deny the existence of the letter and its contents.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, they could have received a National Security Letter which requires them to deny the existence of the letter and its contents.
I really want one of these companies to stand up and say "we got an NSL, so we can't tell you anything". Seriously, what would happen if Google did this? Does anybody really think that Larry Page would be sent to Gitmo?
Re: (Score:3)
They do threaten to send you to jail if you disclose anything about an NSL (even its existence).
I don't think anyone wants to take a chance with their life and liberty to test them and find out.
Best to just go along and cooperate with the man.
Just look at Snowden. On the run. Trapped in Russia. He disclosed the existence of warrant-less wiretapping and other dirty tricks.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget "It's our standard policy not to" which is NOT the same as "We didn't" of course.
Re: (Score:2)
what else could they say. the only scenarios that exist are
A) they did do it as required by law, and are under gag order to not disclose that it happened
B) they didn't do it, but would if required by law.
That's it, they basically just said "we adhere to the law" nothing more nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't UPS pretty much made up entirely of mailroom dudes?
Re:Trust! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that the US resembles more and more the USSR of old? The way to get to the result is a different one, the end result is the same: You have a population that is mostly apathetic towards its government. And whoever isn't apathetic outright hates it. You have a secret service that seems to be more concerned with domestic spying than foreign intelligence, simply because the state and the powers that are fear their "internal" enemies more than they fears anyone coming from abroad. You have a small "elite" that mostly stays within its own circle who share the power in the country while everyone else is mostly powerless. And you have a mainstream press that toes the party line.
It's actually pretty amazing. You needn't have a totalitarian dictatorship to create a situation where you can bullshit and oppress most of the population. But what you DO need is an absence of a better system. That's what fell the communist systems and what keeps the current one we have alive: We lack the "west" they had.
Re:Trust! (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue this is because the average American has been sold a lie - that a society's economic system is equivalent to its system of government. So long as America remains a free market, there is no way that we could ever slip into bureaucratic decline.
The problem is, that the "free market" essentially amounts to a privatization of bureaucracy, not its elimination. We've granted trust to a small class of individuals on the promise they will free us, and unsuprisingly, they are betraying that trust. This is where we now resemble the USSR - the blind allegiance of the multitude to the promises of the few elite in the political class.
Re: (Score:2)
We also have a democracy with multiparty voting, where 3rd party candidates dont tend to mysteriously disappear.
Seriously who is writing these posts? Are you all fresh out of high school or something?
Re: (Score:2)
And it astounds me that within my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to tacitly accepting the equivalent of "papers please, comrade".
And they seem to accept is as a good idea, and completely miss why all of this secret security with absolute power is a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the part where the "secret police" you're talking about doesnt lock people up without charges, or for what htey say: we still have habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, the first amendment, and the ability to vote.
Slashdot is really obnoxious because it generally gets me to take awkward positions: Im pretty pissed about the NSA surveillance, but here someone has made such an absurd allegation that I have to fall back to defending the US.
Seriously you have to be phenomenally ignorant to compare th
Re: (Score:2)
Patience, towarish, patience. Just as you can't boil the frog by turning up the heat to the max, you can't build a socialist paradise over night. You have to take small steps.
So far you're only locking up foreign people without charges. Give it time, you can't eliminate 2 centuries of American values in just a decade. Especially now that the whole "fear the terrorist" hype doesn't really work anymore to cow people into handing over constitutional rights for alleged safety.
Maybe a bomb or two will do that. G
Re: (Score:2)
So far you're only locking up foreign people without charges
SURPRISE! When you violate the Geneva convention by taking up arms against a nation without donning a uniform or fighting under an identifiable flag, you sacrifice most of its protections.
And when you take up arms against the US, you go from "US citizen with the right to trial in civilian court" to "foreign combatant subject to, at best, military tribunal".
Thats sort of how war works. Imagine the chaos if we had to try all WW2 POWs in federal court.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the part where the "secret police" you're talking about doesnt lock people up without charges, or for what htey say: we still have habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, the first amendment, and the ability to vote.
Well, yeah. Unless you're a suspected "terrorist", at least. For that, we have Gitmo and extrajudical execution via drone strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Gitmo is only used when you take up arms against the US. Ive got some news for you: last time folks did that (the civil war) we shot them.
Re: (Score:3)
Have they reinstated habeus corpus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
In particular:
Following the 1 December 2011 vote by the United States Senate to reject an NDAA amendment proscribing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, the ACLU has argued that the legitimacy of Habeas Corpus is threatened: "The Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment [that] would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world... We're disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said 'no' to the Udall amendment and 'yes' to indefinite detention without charge or trial."[48] The New York Times has stated that the vote leaves the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens "ambiguous," with some senators including Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham arguing that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, and other senators, including Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, asserting the opposite.
Re:Trust! (Score:5, Insightful)
As I said, we lack the "west". Sadly, there is nowhere to run.
Why do you think you can still travel? Having a right is pointless if there's no way to make use of it.
Re: (Score:2)
And be honest with yourself, the united states doesn't have its gaze on you. It simply vacuums up everything that it can and stores it, so that if it feels that it needs to put its gaze on you, it could. Mind you, I still think that it's wrong, but there's no Orwellian pyramid structure that's actively committing personnel to lookin
Re: (Score:2)
And be honest with yourself, the united states doesn't have its gaze on you.
Probably not. But rather, they will have their gaze on anyone who does something (no matter what it is) that they don't like, and they'll use the NSA's massive amount of information to try to harass or help convict that person.
This situation is hugely dangerous for any country that claims to be free, let alone 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
The only time, other than filing my taxes, that I really interact with agents of the federal government is when I fly. Yes, it's annoying, and it used to be very invasive. Last couple of times I've flown though, they've actually made it easier to go through security. No shoes off. No belt off unless the buckle is huge. No jacket off unless the metal clasps are too big. No pulling the laptop out of the carry-on. No pulling the liquids in the quart bag out of the carry-on. It's like someone finally decided that the open-everything-up security that they'd been doing wasn't really accomplishing anything other than making a lot of people pissed off, so they rolled it back to close to pre-9/11 levels.
The government cannot be searching everyone at airports; that's absolutely unconstitutional. The TSA can be one of two things: An egregious violation o
Re: (Score:2)
UK, Germany, Italy, Greece: Free speech in the gutter, you can literally be jailed for your political speech on Twitter.
China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam: You can literally be jailed for asking for a mult-party election.
Austrailia: Thinks government controlled internet censor lists are a fantastic idea
Pretty much anywhere in South America, for myriad reasons.
Pretty much anywhere in Southeast asia (for myriad reasons)
Pretty much anywhere in Africa (for myriad reasons)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't oppose Obama (not that I cared about him or whether or not it's racist, he just doesn't matter). I oppose the whole friggin' system that is in place.
The whole shit is FUBAR. Sadly I have no solution to the problem that doesn't end up with a lot of people dead and the rest wondering what good it did because the shit doesn't change, only the figureheads.
Re: (Score:2)
And people ask me why I avoid the US now like I avoided the USSR in the last century...
Re: (Score:3)
When people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have tyranny."
Was that a typo? The second "tyranny" should be "liberty."
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny - Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All sorts of things. A simple example that comes to mind is a patch to add an invisible extra user account with enable privileges.