Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
from the really-now? dept
As lots of folks keep trying to delve into the mind of Ed Snowden without really knowing him at all, Andrew Katz at Time has an article about the security clearance process that people go through to get into a job like that, discussing some of the "blind spots" in the process that might have let an Ed Snowden through. Apparently, the EFF sticker on his laptop should have been a warning sign:In a photograph posted online after Snowden revealed himself, his laptop displays a sticker touting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a longstanding advocate for online rights and staunch opponent of government surveillance. That would have been enough of a warning sign to make it into his file, Smith says, but investigators wouldn't have come across it because clearance interviews aren't performed at their homes: "You're not around that person's personal belongings to make any other additional observations about that person's characters."It seems a bit extreme to suggest that merely supporting a group like EFF automatically makes you suspect for jobs in the intelligence world. After all, isn't EFF defending basic Constitutional freedoms that Americans hold dear, and which our government is supposed to be protecting? But, even more to the point, if having EFF paraphernalia makes you a potential security risk in the NSA, what does that say about NSA Director, General Keith Alexander who attended last year's Defcon in an EFF t-shirt:
More seriously though, it's getting fairly ridiculous when supporting basic Constitutional rights suddenly makes you a security risk. We're entering witch hunt territory, which is what happens when people get overly paranoid.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, ed snowden, edward snowden, eff, keith alexander, warning signs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Terrorist, not a security risk. And if you actually protest you are just 1 level below Bin Laden in the "terroris-o-scale".
We're entering witch hunt territory, which is what happens when people get overly paranoid.
Actually, it's just coming to the surface. The witch hunt is on for a while now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's hoping we do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course not. That's what they say in public, but with secret laws and a secret interpretation of the Constitution, their real purpose is not known. It can't be known.
You must derive what their goals must be from the actions they take, and I submit that mass surveillance is not about finding terrorists, it's about finding dissidents.
These programs are not to protect you from terrorists, it's to protect them from you. And if you think otherwise, well, secret laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I imagine anyone who reads this site has all of their emails collected and read by the government, just to be safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar...
"For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?"
It's the same with the EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds familiar...
Supporting the EFF makes you a security risk, that sounds familiar and similar to:
Reading TechDirt makes you a pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds familiar...
"So you are interested in working for us here at NSA?"
"Sure am! Defending liberty in America is something I believe strongly in."
"I see you're a member of EFF and ACLU. Care to explain that?"
"Well... As I said, I believe in liberty and those organizations works to protect liberty and civil rights."
"That's not the kind of liberty we defend here at NSA."
"Eh... What kind of liberty do you defend then..."
"That's classified. The exit is over there."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds familiar...
No exit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds familiar...
How, precisely, does a police officer reaffirming his oath to the constitution, and refusing illegal orders make him an unfit parent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.....
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supporting EFF Means You're A Security Risk?
Yes.
More stupid questions?
Entering?
Entering?
“Entering?” —Is that a stupid question? Is it? Is it really? Maybe there are only stupid answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entering ?
Heck, we're only inches away from doing what we did to Japanese Americans in 1942. We're already looking at
MCCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' in the rear view mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, isn't EFF defending basic Constitutional freedoms that Americans hold dear, and which our government is supposed to be protecting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: After all, isn't EFF defending basic Constitutional freedoms that Americans hold dear, and which our government is supposed to be protecting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
::Terror talk detected!:: _+EFF;+join;+individual_ >
//
/process target data>
..searching>
..matching profile>
..query thought crime database>
::Match found!::
..identify>
..target locked>
//
/drone dispatch commencing>
/target marked for impending termination>
//
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government is also abridging free speech if they screen you and discriminate based on the fact that you are expressing your free speech in support of the EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of times, most law enforcement people are very black and white on the law. "The law is the law is the law is the law etc." Pot itself may not be that bad, but it's against the law so therefore...
But clearly, there are some laws cops and other law enforcement types find more important than others. Minor possession of marijuana is apparently more important than fundamental civil liberties, from what I can tell. I never understand why the constitution isn't black and white but other laws are, in their minds.
It seems the key is whatever supports an authoritarian mindset is good, in their minds... eg. strict drug laws do, whereas not civil liberty laws because they undermine that mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"defend constitutional freedoms on the internet"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF
Among other things, DHS noted that if a local cop comes across an individual who is unusually familiar with the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, or carries a copy of the Constitution on his person or in his vehicle, then that's a warning sign that the person could be a domestic terrorist. Other factors that DHS says indicate terrorism: refusal to grant consent for warrantless searches, current or prior military service, and people who are overly religious or believe in the "End Times".
Also on the list of potential domestic terrorist organizations was a group known as The Oathkeepers, which is basically a loose affiliation of cops and soldiers who take a pledge never to obey an order from a superior that violates the guaranteed constitutional rights of the citizens of the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
I wonder why such a group hadn't been founded long before early 2009? Surely there was always a risk of receiving an unconstitutional order, right?
I wonder what sort of new development had them so concerned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL! Wow, really??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, since Constitutional freedom is pretty much the antithesis of the Federal government these days, I'd say an EFF sticker would, in fact, make you suspect for a government job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it was only a matter of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So either you stand up for yourself directly or indirectly and become the enemy, or you act like that stupid twat Katz and surrender everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That they are shitty at undercover work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]