61–70 of 417 posts
So, is this correct, in this context? Pass: Apple, Google Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo Unknown: Facebook, Twitter
Fail: Microsoft?
I liked Windows 7. I set up an AD domain at home to use it. Now I feel forced to move to Linux.
I was honestly a bit unhappy when Stamos left Yahoo in the middle of a bunch of (what seemed like) cool projects for users -- seemed like he was just jumping ship from an objectively pretty crappy company to a continuing-to-accelerate rocketship, presumably for career reasons. However, if it went down like this -- he did probably the least destructive thing possible. I probably would have gone public or done somethin…
This should forever taint Marissa Meyer's reputation. Failure to save Yahoo is understandable. Disregard for user privacy and safety at this scale is unforgivable.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [men and women] do nothing."
Both Meyer and Stamos made their choices, on this issue.
So, is this correct, in this context? Pass: Apple, Google Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo Unknown: Facebook, Twitter
Google is definitely in cahoots with the government and probably way deeper than Yahoo. Why would you even assume otherwise, given how much ties to the government they expose to the public these days?
So, is this correct, in this context? Pass: Apple, Google Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo Unknown: Facebook, Twitter
Google is definitely in cahoots with the government and probably way deeper than Yahoo. Why would you even assume otherwise, given how much ties to the government they expose to the public these days?
It's still interesting to know which companies have been actually exposed for this kind abuse of their customers' trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much trouble would someone like Google be in if they gave a "warrant canary" style answer? "I'm sorry, we are unable to answer your question" would speak volumes without actually saying anything. But I suppose that the order forbids "disclosure", and that statement is arguably disclosure...
The article says: "Alphabet Inc's Google and Microsoft Corp, two major U.S. email service providers, did not respond to requests for comment." Isn't that pretty much saying "I'm sorry, we are unable to answer your question"? If they weren't doing the same thing as Yahoo, they could say so.
I think the attitude here that most tech companies are rolling over and just complying without a single ethical consideration is misplaced. The government has been doing an excellent job of basically extorting these companies into compliance. They threaten the full weight of the US government's wraith and then tie every order up with classifications and gag orders. You aren't legally allowed to talk to other companie…
Isn't this the same as the Snowden revelations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The white house is above the NSA and FBI, so wouldn't access to their bosses preclude them being coerced?
On the org chart it may be, but when the three letter mafia is blackmailing you what can you do, even as the president?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The white house is above the NSA and FBI, so wouldn't access to their bosses preclude them being coerced?
On the org chart it may be, but when the three letter mafia is blackmailing you what can you do, even as the president?
$250k per day doubling every week that can come with a gag order sounds like the sort of thing that could damage a business to the point of extinction, no?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-laws...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much trouble would someone like Google be in if they gave a "warrant canary" style answer? "I'm sorry, we are unable to answer your question" would speak volumes without actually saying anything. But I suppose that the order forbids "disclosure", and that statement is arguably disclosure...
The article says: "Alphabet Inc's Google and Microsoft Corp, two major U.S. email service providers, did not respond to requests for comment." Isn't that pretty much saying "I'm sorry, we are unable to answer your question"? If they weren't doing the same thing as Yahoo, they could say so.
It's basic PR for big brands to avoid getting quoted in the messes their competitor gets into.