Yes! America went so far as making a special law to protect their citizens exercising their free speech rights from being sued by British libel laws http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2010/aug/11/medialaw-barack-obama

What you are saying is incorrect. In the UK if I tell you a lie about someone, and you repeat it publicly, you can be sued for libel. The fault is yours for not verifying the damaging information before you published it. Merely printing a retraction isn't enough, because once the accusation is made it sticks in the public mind. Otherwise I can call you a pedo, and retract it later. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes a retraction might satisfy the defamed party, but if the damage is significant they can decide to sue you anyway. In this case no one would ever trust RSA again, so the damage is severe. If the story was fake, RSA could sue the Guardians arse off.

As for your theory that competitors leaked this to damage RSA, you have not offered a shred of evidence, and your premise that the Guardian can print untrue stories without being sued for libel is false.

The Guardian ran the story. If it wasn't true RSA could sue their arses off in court for the value of their now worthless business. Guardian wouldn't dare run it unless they could prove it is true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/nsa-internet-security-rsa-secret-10m-encryption

Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages â Secret files show scale of Silicon Valley co-operation on Prism â Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch â Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls â Company says it is legally compelled to comply http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

"Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple" http://gizmodo.com/google-to-government-let-us-publish-national-security-512647113

And look at the chronology of this:
23 September 2013: BBC News - RSA warns over NSA link to encryption algorithm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24173977
21 December 2013: NSA Gave RSA $10 Million To Promote Crypto It Had Purposely Weakened https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131220/14143625655/nsa-gave-rsa-10-million-to-promote-crypto-it-had-purposely-weakened.shtml How apt: Techdirt said the story was from the "from the say-bye-bye-to-credibility,-rsa dept"

Fuck you RSA. Fuck you NSA.

RSA denying it? "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" - Mandy Rice-Davies

If this story turns out to be true, then RSA's name is mud. Only a complete and utter moron would buy from them after this.

Same goes for the other companies who have been selling us out. Even Google and Microsoft who are now leaking stories about them boldly protecting their backbones from the NSA have been handing over our data, and in the case of Microsoft took cold hard cash to add backdoors to Skype and God knows what else. If you trust *any* of these companies you are a complete and utter moron.

You must read it like a lawyer: "should not be permitted to collect and store all mass, undigested, non-public personal information about individuals to enable future queries and data-mining for foreign intelligence purposes. Any program involving government collection or storage of such data must be narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest."

That means "non-mass" "digested" or "public personal information about individuals" can be stored. Information on social networks is public. So are business records, like what your phone company charged you to call someone or what you're doing with your credit card. Then after a veiled lie that they won't collect it, they then say "Any program involving government collection or storage of such data must be narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest." See what they did there? And they will declare whatever suits them is an important government interest, like economic espionage.

Amen!

The people should build a statue of Snowden next to Lincoln's with those words on a plaque underneath.

And then...

General Alexander: 'Guantanamo? That seems like a demotion!'

Prosecutor: 'You won't be on that side of the fence, asshole!'

Before it was terrorists, it was smugglers. http://libertyfirstfl.org/?p=253

... that this is what happens when a country puts its energy into space travel and not spying on its own people, but China is of course doing both.

Where as the US is only doing one of these.

Oh ZING! YEAH! THAT'S GOTTA HURT!

Unfortunately people being people she will use her knowledge of Google's concerns and her prior connections with Google to advance their agenda. That's human nature. To claim it won't affect her decision making is naive.

Contracts can be freely broken. Happens in business all the time. To do it the breaker must pay the breakee economic damages which will likely be $0.00. That won't even cover his lawyers fees, and what if the jury decides they don't like hipsters wearing googleglasses? Hipster would probably piss off the jury further by showing up wearing them in court.