On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, SM <s...@resistor.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/
