Cisco CEO lashes out at NSA, tells Obama to stop bugging IT hardware

[Ichingcarpenter]

Cisco Systems Inc's chief executive officer has written a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging him to curtail government surveillance after evidence circulated showing the U.S. National Security Agency had intercepted Cisco equipment, a company spokesman said on Sunday.​

In a letter dated May 15, John Chambers, chief executive officer and chairman of the networking equipment giant, warned of an erosion of confidence in the U.S. technology industry and called for new "standards of conduct" in how the NSA conducts its surveillance.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cisco-ceo-lashes-out-at-nsa-tells-obama-to-stop-bugging-it-hardware-1.2647079

[merrily]

1. Thanks, Ichingcarpenter. A sternly worded, but well-publicized, letter?

Look, I abhor the surveillance state, which I believe to be illegal. But wasn't Cisco co-operating secretly until Snowden outed it, while in the process of outing the USG?

I don't want to deflect attention from the USG, which has a duty to me, while Cisco's duty is only to its stockholders. However, I am not impressed by this, as anything but an attempt to minimize damage to Cisco's own reputation.

Of course, if someone proves to me that Cisco fought the USG tooth and nail before handing over its hardware to the USG, I will apologize. Until then, I'm looking at this letter as a cynical move on the part of Cisco.

Still, any voice against the surveillance state is welcome, especially from a "job creator" as big as Cisco. I'm just not going to genuflect is all.


Question for the lawyers and others at DU who post as though they are experts on whistleblower laws: would our current whistleblower laws have protected Cisco for filing suit against the US, rather than going along secretly? If not, it shows how inadequate our whistleblower laws are for modern times.

Of course, if people in the chain you are supposed to follow under current whistleblower laws tell you to forget about it, that also shows how inadequate our laws are. So do the actual experiences of whistleblowers, including Ellsberg. Remember, he did get prosecuted, but the case was dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct, a dismissal that Ellsberg believes would not happen in post 911 times.

In a video, doctored or not, Bin Laden laughed at the US, saying all the enemy had to do after 911 to cause us to spend billions was "chatter." And that is probably true. His info on that subject is much better than mine.

It also took 911 for us to lose the rights to privacy, a fair trial, representation by counsel, etc., all of which the USG now publicly asserts it can eliminate if terrorism is suspected. (It does not make those assertions in those terms, of course. More so by actions, then defending its actions if and when they become public.) We keep saying we will not allow terrorists to win. But, is that the truth, or sloganeering?

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. The reason they complained is cause they got exposed

I have no doubt they knew about it but when the revelation came out they knew it would affect their bottom dollar on export.

Germany has said it will cut ties with businesses that enable and do hanky panky with NSA spying three days ago.

Cisco has always been a nasty company.

[merrily]

6. Thank, Ichingcarpenter. And that is why, while grateful for any voice,

especially one that has much more clout in D.C. and the media than I do, this letter does not lead me to genuflect.

[billhicks76]

3. I'm Convinced

I'm convinced NSA has embarrassing phone taps of Obama himself as a Senator that they use as leverage. And I bet just like whistleblower Russ Tice said they are blackmailing judges, politicians, prosecutors and journalists.

[merrily]

4. Is that another version of the story about the CIA showing every President a video of the Kennedy

assassination? IOW, is this just another way of claiming that Presidents--at least Democratic Presidents--have no personal responsibility for their actions while in office?

If so, here's my response:


Throughout our country's history, Presidents asked young kids who originally got next to nothing by way of monetary compensation or individual glory or power, to die for this country whenever the President and Congress said so. (Over time, the President and Congress have conspired agreed that the Constitutional requirement about Congress was mostly a joke by the Founders, but that's another story entirely.) And, as Michelle Obama has been pointing out in TV ads, kids have done that, every time the President has asked. (Well, Michelle says the country asks, but, in reality, it's the President.)

Presidents, including Democratic Presidents, get to be treated like emperors for four to eight years at a time. If they don't want to die for their country, they shouldn't run for that office, let alone ask 18 year olds to do it for K rations. So, if the NSA is blackmailing Obama and he is putting his image above his duty to his country, then shame on both of them, but especially on him--because they both require my money, but he also asked me for my vote. TWICE. (So even after he saw the alleged CIA film and after he allegedly got blackmailed.)

BTW, I never believed the bit about the CIA film. However, even if it were true, it not be an excuse for any President, but most especially not for any President who ran for re-election knowing he was too cowardly to speak out.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. Obama does as Obama likes.