On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Yoav,
At 03:28 11-09-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
I don't think you'd even need the threats.
[snip]
Notice the important parts of that pitch. A sense of danger; Making the
target feel either patriotic or a humanitarian; Sharing a "secret" with the
target, making him part of the "inner circle". Making the target feel
important, like "only your cooperation can help us stop the next attack".
If this pitch is executed correctly, by the end, the target is asking for
an NSL as CYA. I've seen this kind of thing done once years ago, but it was
done very poorly and didn't work.
Yes.
My reading of Phillip Hallam-Baker's comment is that there isn't anything
to worry about in relation to Comodo except that he does not have any
knowledge about the operational side. John Levine asked how likely they
would risk their reputation. Theodore Ts'o mentioned that there really is
no incentive for them to do a good job.
Since the operations side is in Salford UK, a National Security Letter
would have no force there.
I am not aware of any similar provision in UK law which is in any case
constrained by European Union privacy law, European Human Rights law etc.
And it is a firmly established principle of English law that the courts
cannot interfere with any action in parliament and that an injunction
obtained in England has no effect in Scotland (yes really). So if people
are really worried, get me tickets to the Edinburgh festival and return
airfare and we can have a talk. But you would probably be disappointed by
what I had to say. If I did have something to say I would go talk to one of
the members of parliament I know from university, school, family, etc.
Incidentally the worst British judge of the 20th century is no longer on
the bench and the super-injunction stupidity has come to an end with his
career.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/