'Obnoxious' RSA Protests, RSA Remains Mum 99
An anonymous reader writes "By 'buying out' the most obvious lunch spot nearest the RSA conference yesterday, opponents and truth-seekers regarding RSA's alleged deal with the NSA raised awareness amongst attendees in the most brutal way possible: by taking away tacos and tequila drinks. Robert Imhoff, Vegas 2.0 co-founder, says, 'RSA could begin to fix this by going on the record with a detailed response about the accusations.'" I tried to get attendees of the conference to comment on camera — even a little bit — on what they thought of the NSA spying revelations, and not a single person I approached would do so. The pained facial expressions when they refused were interesting, though, and reflect the problem with a surveillance society in a nutshell. Especially at a conference where the NSA is surrounded by vendors who sell the hardware and software that enables your "mere" metadata to be captured and sifted, plenty of the people on the floor know that the companies they work for are or might one day be seeking contracts to do all that capturing and sifting, even if they'd rather not be subject to it personally, so their don't want their face shown saying so.
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this little stunt has anything to say about a "problem with a surveillance society"; they have something to say about a problem with some a$$hole ambushing some geeks at a tech conference that just want to get their lunch and get back to the conference sessions.
And the RSA did go on record. They said it wasn't true. As far as going into the gory details of the contract? Contract details of any contract, with any customer, are generally not something a security company is ever going to disclose. That's not surveillance-state paranoia or evidence of evildoing; it's routine business practice.
Bad inference (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid reasoning. There are plenty of other reasons these people might not want to publicly comment. The most likely is that they're not authorized to speak for their employers, and fear rebuke or dismissal at their workplaces if they speak publicly on the topic.
routine (Score:1, Insightful)
If the contract is such that you are abetting the government in unconstitutional searches, then well, it seems worthy of getting pissed off about and definitely worthy of being labeled "surveillance state".
As a long time (and lazily anonymous, sue me) reader of slashdot I'm always amazed at how many commenters seem willing to give companies/corporations/government a pass because it's just "routine" business practice.
If it's routine for a company not to tell me how it makes it's product, okay fine (maybe).
If it's routine for a company to give away all my information to the government (who yes , absolutely is supposed to have a warrant) then I say, "fuck routine."
On what basis can you make this demand? (Score:3, Insightful)
The RSA has already explicitly said the contract doesn't say what they are accused of it saying. What else do you want them to do? They can't go and release the details of a confidential contract simply because somebody thinks it contains something it doesn't have.
Now, I'm not saying that RSA isn't lying, but if they were, would you believe that any contract they produced was an accurate one? Probably not. Talk about "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Re:On what basis can you make this demand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they can release the details of that contract. Government contracts are supposed to be public. Go take a look at usaspending.gov and fpds.gov There are plenty of security contracts posted there, just not any between RSA and NSA. It's not the easiest system in the world to navigate, you have to know a lot about government contracting to make sense of it.
But, you'll see military hardware contracts, homeland security database contracts, all of them are published on federal websites as a matter of course (you have to get special approval to not post a contract publically). The government mandates this so that competing companies and the public can see that they're getting a "fair deal". Never mind that a lot of these show they weren't competed, no one actually takes advantage of government transparency when it's available.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do I think that Our Fearless Correspondent is even remotely effective in his stated aims? Not with those tactics, he'd be hard pressed to get someone to tell him the time.
Should we care about that? Do RSA's little minions deserve to throw a veil of contractual secrecy over their lunch hour, lest their delicate feelings be offended by the sight of disapproval?
In a situation where legal redress is, in all probability, a fantasy; but displeasure is very real, isn't social disapproval an excellent response? Wouldn't it be delightful if admitting to working for a spook contractor was about as pleasant as admitting that you take the long way around that school zone because you are a convicted sex offender? Now, especially without good evidence tying individual people to individual pieces of work, you don't want to go overboard; but it would be downright wholesome if the penalty for collaboration was constant exposure to contempt.