[HCoop-Discuss] Draft data confidentiality policies

[Nathan Kennedy]

Jeffrey Drake wrote:
> Mr. Kennedy,
>
> In your hcoop-misc email you state "I would also like to, if possible, 
> seek a contract rider with Peer 1 that would provide mutual anti-FISA 
> provisions", do you really feel that we are large enough to impose such 
> a provision?
>   
Probably not.
But there is a chance, especially if they are not happy with FISA, and 
especially if we are not just renewing our contract but expanding 
services (which may not be the case for some time).
Since it is a mutual provision that I am seeking with only breach of 
contract as a remedy, and only in the event of something already 
illegal, it is not asking for all that much.
Just saying it is worth a shot and we should ask for it.
> I do find it troubling that the FISA is making its way through both 
> houses, but if it passes then what is the point of this policy? As I 
> understand it, the FISA amendments are meant to make what is now illegal 
> legal - which would make this policy meaningless.
>   
No.  Although the FISA bill does increase the authority of the executive 
branch in investigations, the especially controversial immunity bits, 
which the failed Dodd amendment would have stricken, basically says that 
even if a telecom provider breaks the law, if they are doing it at the 
behest of an executive request (no matter if it is illegal according to 
any federal or state law) the bill eliminates any liability for this 
action.  You can read the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/ by looking up 
S.2248.  The immunity provisions are in titles II and VIII.

That's not the same as making it legal, and it is very sweeping.  What 
this anti-FISA policy would basically do is require, at a minimum, that 
any disclosures to law enforcement be made only legally, and that any 
person in a position of HCoop authority who finds out about illegal 
surveillance to report it to the board.

Yes, it is a sad day when a corporation has to make it a policy that 
they will comply with the law, but this is important to counter the very 
obvious consequence of the FISA bill that "it is okay to break the law 
if the President, the FBI, or any of his other goons tells you to." It's 
a product of seven-plus years of a Bush administration.
> Section 4 is contains the text "or total destruction of the entire 
> universe." and it is completely unacceptable that you would pose this to 
>   be placed in an official policy of this cooperative.
Like I said it is a bit over the top.  Maybe that should be taken out, 
but the point to be made is that if the government is illegally demanded 
information from us, waving this new immunity in front of us, and 
invoking "national security" and the whole parade of horrors that is 
always invoked in these cases, it needs to be clear that our sysadmins, 
staff, and administration cannot cave in, and if they do they are 
violating our policies and should be kicked out.  The law needs to be 
respected, regardless of the ridiculous or over-the-top justifications 
proffered for breaking it.

Let's not forget that the same government that has been illegally 
wiretapping major telecoms all over the country, and is seeking these 
expanded powers and immunities, is the same one that recently spoke of a 
"smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" over America to justify 
our current foreign adventures in Iraq.  I thought that was over the top 
at the time also.  Sorry if that is too political, but it the context of 
the FISA bill.

-ntk