GWB's Press Secretary explains why he needs to wiretap us
|
View:
New views
9 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
GWB's Press Secretary explains why he needs to wiretap us
by Randall-12
::
Rate this Message:
> [This is from yesterday's Press Gaggle, with Scott Stanzel]:
> > Q: Scott, where do you go from here on the surveillance thing? Is > the administration prepared to do any stopgap measures while > Congress is away? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, it's unfortunate, as you heard the President > talk about this morning, that the House is departing Washington for > 12 days off for Presidents Day. And it is important, I think -- as > you heard the President, it's important to note a few things. > > It's our view that leaders in Washington have no greater > responsibility than to protect the American people. But at this > time, this gap that we closed six months ago is going to reopen. > And as Director McConnell has said, the Protect America Act has > helped us obtain valuable insight on terrorist activities and it > has led to the disruption of terrorist attacks. And unfortunately, > tomorrow night that law will expire. So we will continue to work > with members of Congress about the importance. But the issue really > here is why is the House leadership, Democratic leadership, > blocking a bipartisan bill? > > Q: Are you going to reach out to the telecommunications companies > and ask them to keep helping you in this policy? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, those are conversations that are ongoing. And as > you would remember, prospective liability was passed in August, and > that gave liability protection to companies to assist going > forward. That prospective liability comes into question with the > expiration of the Protect America Act. > > So as you heard the leaders talk about, those companies are > increasingly reluctant to help their country and help us track the > activities of terrorists in foreign lands. It becomes more and more > difficult as time goes on to obtain their cooperation on these > issues, and that is of great concern. > > Yes, Helen? > > Q: What right does the President have to tell any company or any > person in this country to break the law? > > MR. STANZEL: I -- what's your point? > > Q: No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without > any warrants? > > MR. STANZEL: The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last > August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program > that is expiring tomorrow night. > > Q: Well, if it's lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still > prevails, doesn't it? > > MR. STANZEL: Because it's -- in 1978, as we talked about, during > that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance > Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain > intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we're not > wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to > terrorists in foreign countries. > > So it's important that this law was modernized. It was modernized > in August. As we talked about then, that the law was significantly > outdated. You could have sat in that chair in 1978 and not had the > ability to make a phone call from a cell phone; today you can. > Today, you can send an e-mail from anywhere in the world via a > Blackberry. The law was outdated, so it > needed to be improved. It was improved. But Congress set a deadline > for it to expire so they could review it some more and that -- they > missed that deadline. We gave them a 15-day extension. > > The Senate used that time to pass a bipartisan bill that received > over two-thirds support from the United States Senate, has a > majority of support in the United States House. But the House > leadership, which seems to be beholden to class-action trial > attorneys in this matter, refused to let it come up for a vote. So > they are more interested in protecting the > interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the > interests of Americans. > > Q: That's a terrible indictment for you to say. They want to obey > the law. > > MR. STANZEL: And we are obeying the law and it is important that > this law be improved and modernized. > > Jeremy. > > Q: All Americans should be wire-tapped? > > MR. STANZEL: Helen, your facts are not correct here. If a foreign > terrorist is calling to the United States, we want to know what > they're saying. > > Q: How do you know they're a foreign terrorist? > > MR. STANZEL: Because they're in foreign lands and we have to be > able to track foreign terrorists in foreign lands and what they're > doing. > > Q: Any foreigner -- > > MR. STANZEL: You may want to extend constitutional protections to > terrorists, but that is not something that we want to do. > > Q: You can't automatically call every foreigner a terrorist. > > MR. STANZEL: Jeremy? > > Q: Scott, two questions. One on this issue. The comment that you > just made about the House being "beholden" to class-action trial > attorneys -- Democrats have accused the White House of politicizing > this. With a comment like that, how do you respond that those kinds > of charges that this is just a political theater game? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, the Director of National Intelligence has > indicated on numerous occasions that, without retroactive immunity, > the private sector -- actually, this is from the committee report > from the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would refer you to that, > bipartisan, came out of the committee, 13 to two -- "Without > retroactive immunity, the private > sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government > requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and > protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that > might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety > of our nation." > > That is what a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate Intelligence > Committee said about retroactive liability. That's important. The > President, as you remember in the debate in August said we need to > give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect this > country, and if they don't have those, then I will find it > unacceptable. > > In November, we told the House that their proposal and their > approach was unacceptable. So -- and that's a statement of > administration policy. We need these tools, we need that > retroactive liability. > > So why is it that House Democrat leadership is blocking the vote, > simple up or down vote on a bipartisan proposal that received > nearly 70 percent support in the United States Senate and would > receive bipartisan majority support in the House -- why is it that > they are blocking that? > > [SNIP] > > Q: I was kind of wondering where you go from here, back on the > Protect America Act. I mean, is there any room for negotiation at > all? I mean, if immunity is the issue, are there other things you > could do, like cap liability? Or is it just you have these two > intractable positions and how do you accomplish -- > > MR. STANZEL: Well, I think -- I think that, obviously it's our view > that the House should take up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. > That would pass the House. That much is clear. So a majority in the > House of Representatives wants the Senate-passed bill to come up > for a vote and pass. So that's where we are. If that were to > happen, we could go about the > business of protecting Americans and put this issue behind us. > Unfortunately, the House Democrat leadership has not taken that > approach. > > So I haven't seen other ideas out there. It seems that the House is > committed to going on their 12-day recess over Presidents Day and > that is unfortunate. So certainly, if there are other ideas out > there, those are ones that we would take a look at. However, it > seems simple enough, the solution is well within grasp. > > Q: Just real quick. Why not have another -- I know you guys are > sick of these, but another 15-day -- I mean, if the threat is so > grave, isn't that better -- > MR. STANEL: Simply passing -- Congress -- you must remember that > Congress set its own deadline. They set a six-month deadline to > review these issues. We felt that that was plenty long enough, and > the fact that it was going to expire is not something that we > supported in the first place. The terrorist threat is not going to > expire. > > So they asked for a 15-day extension to again review these things. > But I think as you heard, I think it was Mr. Boehner talk about, it > calls into question their desire to really address these issues in > a full way if we are doing extension after extension after > extension, and that is no way for the intelligence community to go > about its planning. And it causes > greater concern, I think, to our ability to work with the private > sector to make sure that we're able to track what terrorists are > planning overseas. > > Q: But why isn't a temporary extension still better than nothing? I > mean, I understand why you want to get the retroactive immunity and > why you think that's important. But if the leadership isn't > offering that, why wouldn't another temporary extension be better > than nothing? > > MR. STANZEL: I would put it another way: What is it that they need > more time for? The solution is there. The solution is before them. > But they are blocking the solution. Why are they blocking the > solution? For partisan reasons. They are blocking that because they > are beholden to class-action trial attorneys. > > Q: But given that they seem to be intractable right now, wouldn't > you still prefer to let the law keep going for a while, than to > have it expire? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, an extension was rejected by a majority in the > House of Representatives. > > Q: Right, and I'm asking why, given that they're allowing that to > happen, it seems to me to call into question some of these > statements that now there are going to be gaps -- dangerous gaps in > intelligence-gathering. > MR. STANZEL: There will be. > > Q: Well, I'm saying, if you believe that, wouldn't you rather have -- > > MR. STANZEL: Well, it's up to House leaders to figure out how we > should protect our country. The solution is there before them. So > the majority in the House supports the solution before them. So all > it has to have is an up or down vote; simple as that. > > Q: What do you say to Nancy Pelosi, though, who -- she accused the > President yesterday -- I know you heard this -- of fear-mongering. > She said, obviously you can still pursue the targets that are > covered by the current law; right now you can still pursue any > investigation that has already been initiated. And then new ones, > all you'd have to do is get a > warrant. > > MR. STANZEL: Right, but the warrant process is the exact process > that was problematic. In 1978, the law wasn't designed to have > warrants on foreign targets -- plain and simple. And how fast the > FISA Court acts is not the issue; it's how long it takes to put > together a very lengthy application leading up to the FISA Court > acting. So that's problematic. And so how > would we respond? We are very concerned about the safety of > Americans. We all should be concerned about the safety of > Americans. That is why the Senate took the action that it did, in a > broad bipartisan way, to pass the Protect America Act. The House > should do the same. > > Q: You can get a warrant after the fact. > > Q: How much serious consideration did the President give to > delaying his trip to Africa? I mean, he mentioned that yesterday > and then he decided to go ahead and go anyway. Was it an idle threat? > > MR. STANZEL: No, that was an offer. I wouldn't call it a threat at > all. It was an offer to stay here -- if the House wanted to stay > here and work on these issues, and if he could be of assistance to > them to get this work done, he was willing to delay his trip. > > Q: But he knew at that time that the House had already decided to > adjourn. > > MR. STANZEL: Well, I don't know that their decision was made final. > But certainly, he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't prepared to > delay his trip. > > Q: And why is he going -- is it simply -- > > MR. STANZEL: Because the House has made it clear that they don't > intend to act. > > [SNIP] > > Q: I'm just still not clear on the question about the -- why the > administration decided that, hey, we're not going to do an extension. > > MR. STANZEL: I would take -- the question is premises on the fact > that an extension was available. An extension is not. A majority in > the House of Representatives rejected that approach. > > Q: But that's based on -- > > Q: -- said he would veto -- > > MR. STANZEL: They've known since November -- they've known since > November that our approach has been very clear, that -- > > Q: But if the President is serious about protecting the United > States, which is the point that he has made in now three statements > in three days about this, that if this is so vital and that the > process is so cumbersome to get the kind of warrants you need > through the previous process, before PAA, then why not tell the > Republicans on the Hill, his party, that, > okay, you know what, we need an extension, to continue doing it the > way that he wants -- > MR. STANZEL: Democrats are in control of the House of > Representatives. If they're serious they will bring up the > bipartisan Senate-passed bill for an up or down vote. Simple as that. > > Q: Can you speak to what actually happens now logistically, when > the legislation expires, what's the process? Are the wiretaps going > to stop? Are you going to start pursuing the warrants? What's going > to happen? > MR. STANZEL: Well, those may be questions that are best addressed > to the intelligence community. But certainly the tools that we have > will be weakened. As Kathleen mentioned, some of the efforts that > are currently underway have an opportunity to continue; new efforts > would have to go through the old process. So -- but further, what > concerns us the most is > the ability to compel the assistance of private companies to > continue to assist with this effort. If we don't have the help of > these private companies, we don't have a program, plain and simple. > > So that -- with each step and each time this issue seems to falter > in Congress, the companies become increasingly reluctant, out of a > responsibility as I think the leaders mentioned, to their > shareholders, to figure out if they want to be subject to these > billion-dollar class-action lawsuits. And that is not something > that is good for the companies, it's not something that's good for > the security of the American people. > > All right, thank you. [END} ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
Topics for CIO discussion?
by Phelps, Erik J.
::
Rate this Message:
I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a
reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again. If one were spending time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be? Previous nominees include: e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention, etc.) open source issues and changes to GPL general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.) information security Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated. And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group. Erik Phelps ejphelps@... My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer. **************************************************************************** Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender. ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
Re: Topics for CIO discussion?
by Dan Pepper
::
Rate this Message:
Erik,
You may want to discuss some of the legal pitfalls with both on= and off-shore outsourcing. That's been a popular topic I've discussed with similar groups before. A somewhat related issue might be data privacy and security - both in the U.S. and abroad. Good luck! PLG_3D - email Daniel A. Pepper, Esq. 21 E. High Street, Suite D Pepper Law Group, LLC Somerville, NJ 08876 908.698.0330 (voice) <mailto:plcg@...> dan@... 908.248.9220 (fax) <http://www.informationlaw.com/> www.informationlaw.com Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, contains information of Pepper Law Group, LLC. (Somerville, NJ, USA) that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted, and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. -----Original Message----- From: Law & Policy of Computer Communications [mailto:CYBERIA-L@...] On Behalf Of Phelps, Erik J (22247) Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:34 AM To: CYBERIA-L@... Subject: [CYBERIA] Topics for CIO discussion? I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again. If one were spending time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be? Previous nominees include: e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention, etc.) open source issues and changes to GPL general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.) information security Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated. And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group. Erik Phelps ejphelps@... My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer. **************************************************************************** Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender. ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
Re: Topics for CIO discussion?
by Michael Ravnitzky
::
Rate this Message:
RECORDS RETENTION
FOIA AND REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATABASES SAFE AND SOUND DISPOSITION OF OBSOLETE HARDWARE (such as old servers, computers) E.O. 13423 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS W/R/T INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY METADATA ON MATERIALS POSTED ON THE INTERNET MOVING MATERIALS TOWARD PUBLIC AVAILABILITY ON THE INTERNET FROM THE INTRANET > I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a > reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again. If one were spending > time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to > suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be > paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be? > Previous nominees include: > > e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention, > etc.) > open source issues and changes to GPL > general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.) > information security > > Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated. > > And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a > member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have > vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while > I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia > represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law > and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group. > > Erik Phelps > ejphelps@... > My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer. > > > **************************************************************************** > > Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment > hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or > submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or > written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of > avoiding federal tax penalties. > > The information contained in this communication may be confidential, > is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may > be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its > contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and > delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer > system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please > contact the sender. > > > ********************************************************************** > For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia > Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot > Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... > ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Topics for CIO discussion?
by Carol Shepherd
::
Rate this Message:
Contracts management and SOX compliance.
A lot of the consulting work I am doing lately for larger corporations is related to auditing agreements and establishing contracts management procedures. These are usually initiatives of IT procurement departments in conjunction with legal and compliance departments. A public corporation will typically have 5K-15K active contracts and over half still do not have a central repository for active contract metadata on parties, term and renewal, termination rights, maximum spend, maximum liability, etc. This is not so much a legal liability issue as it is a SOX compliance issue and a legal workflow / procurement management issue. For closely held corporations in the 5K+ contracts range it is still a darn good idea. Phelps, Erik J (22247) wrote: > I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a > reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again. If one were spending > time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to > suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be > paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be? > Previous nominees include: > > e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention, > etc.) > open source issues and changes to GPL > general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.) > information security > > Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated. > > And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a > member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have > vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while > I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia > represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law > and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group. > > Erik Phelps > ejphelps@... > My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer. > > > **************************************************************************** > > Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment > hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or > submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or > written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of > avoiding federal tax penalties. > > The information contained in this communication may be confidential, > is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may > be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its > contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and > delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer > system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please > contact the sender. > > > ********************************************************************** > For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia > Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot > Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... > ********************************************************************** > -- Carol Ruth Shepherd Arborlaw PLC Ann Arbor MI USA 734 668 4646 v 734 786 1241 f Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business http://arborlaw.com ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
Re: Topics for CIO discussion?
by Randall-12
::
Rate this Message:
Not that this is something I'd raise with a CIO, but I found it
amusing to see the disclaimers at the footers of the responses you've received so far. On Feb 28, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Phelps, Erik J (22247) wrote: > I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a > reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again. If one were spending > time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to > suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be > paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would > they be? > Previous nominees include: > > e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records > retention, > etc.) > open source issues and changes to GPL > general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.) > information security > > Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated. > > And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've > been a > member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have > vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure > while > I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia > represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law > and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group. > > Erik Phelps > ejphelps@... > My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer. > > > ********************************************************************** > ****** > > Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment > hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or > submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or > written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of > avoiding federal tax penalties. > > The information contained in this communication may be confidential, > is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may > be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its > contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and > delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer > system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please > contact the sender. > > > ********************************************************************** > For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia > Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot > Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... > ********************************************************************** My Original Writing blog: http://itgotworse.livedigital.com ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
Re: Topics for CIO discussion?
by John Young-7
::
Rate this Message:
Indeed, the silliness of disclaimers is worthy of CIO-grade
hilarity. No way anything digital cannot be purloined, and no way a digital system is not at fault for promising security and privacy when the geeks know it's just not possible. Disclaimers were invented to provide imaginary exculpability. To be sure there is no way not to break the law, laws were invented to assure the need for more laws. I worked on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure for which every single sheet, drawing, spec, letter were stamped with a disclaimer aimed at anybody who got a piece of the paper mountain after signing an NDA. Meanwhile the computer networks on which the documents were made available lacked rudimentary security, no control over those who got access, employee turnover heavy, available over the Internet. The project is loudly touted as a premier terrorist target, yet had no security measures against attack, instead it was marketed as the reason huge amounts of additional anti-terrorism funding was urgently needed. Nobody loves to warn about threats like CIOs, the police, the military, the preachers, the teachers, the parents, the lovers, all believers in disclaimers for their fuck-ups. ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
|
|
Re: Topics for CIO discussion?
by Randall-12
::
Rate this Message:
On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:18 AM, John Young wrote:
> I worked on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure for which every > single sheet, drawing, spec, letter were stamped with a disclaimer > aimed at anybody who got a piece of the paper mountain after > signing an NDA. > > Meanwhile the computer networks on which the documents were > made available lacked rudimentary security, no control over those > who got access, employee turnover heavy, available over the > Internet. Twenty-some years ago, when dialup was how one got into "online" computers, a major US military database had a login of Anonymous and a password of "LETMEIN". Their security depended on the Bad Guys not knowing the modems' phone number. Six years ago the (NT) server password at every office of a national US insurance company was - you guessed it - Admin. In 1997, an extremely large, privately-held company in South Texas had its MIS Guy transfer a good bit of money to an account in Costa Rica just before he didn't come back from vacation. They were frantic, because they had no idea what the admin password was for their Oracle installation. It was ORACLE. These are all instances of which I have personal, first-hand knowledge. D ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... ********************************************************************** |
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |