bugtraq - RE: Cryptome: NSA has real-time access to Hushmail servers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <F9C0B32C4FFE7147BD0FF6A40BE806E701AD8C@Hammer_Exchange.hammerofgod.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:18:57 -0800
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "Steve Shockley" <steve.shockley@...ckley.net>,
	<bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: RE: Cryptome: NSA has real-time access to Hushmail servers

One would be required not to disclose the fact that you were served a
letter or what records you were "asked" to disclose.  Apparently, the
language of the letter is worded to make one think that cooperation is
legally required, though it looks like it is voluntary.  And even
"required" is dubious... According to the ACLU, the "gag order" portion
of the NSL provision of the Patriot Act was found to be unconstitutional
on two occasions.  

But no, you couldn't be legally required to "lie."  Had Guardster
received such a letter, and they decided to comply, they would most
likely have not responded at all rather than make a public statement to
the contrary...

t

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Shockley [mailto:steve.shockley@...ckley.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:11 AM
> To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Cryptome: NSA has real-time access to Hushmail servers
> 
> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > Note that if they had been served with an NSL (National Security
> Letter),
> > they may be legally *required* to lie about it while cooperating.
> Actually
> > truthfully saying "Yeah, an NSL showed up and we complied" could
land
> them
> > in jail....
> 
> Requred to lie, or just required to not disclose the cooperation?