91–100 of 417 posts
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…
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…
"Promises only bind those who believe in them" - Henri Queuille
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've upvoted you, despite disagreeing with you, because I believe it's worth us all discussing the reasoning behind our opinions. What you've just said is the email equivalent to "she deserved to be raped, because she was dressed like a slut". Yes, we should take precautions to protect ourselves. But that in no way justifies the privacy intrusions that happened here.
I think it's closer to "you deserved your message to be read, since you put it on the back of a postcard". But ok.
Concepts of scale and intent are rather central to this discussion.
This isn't about a postal employee glancing at your postcard and thinking you must be having a nice vacation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget this story. Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio who claims to have resisted NSA spying is out of prison (2013) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30...
Nacchio is no hero. He ran a $50MM pump-and-dump scam that personally netted him millions of dollars in profits at the expense of common shareholders, and he was indicted in a wave of similar prosecutions in the wake of the Enron fiasco. His offenses are there in black and white: with full knowledge that his company faced materially adverse changes unknown to his investors, he not only promoted the company but privat…
[1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns... [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/more_on_the_n...
The lesson from this is to not trust corporations with out privacy. Sadly, it seems many of us are not learning it.
I'm as upset about this as anybody, but realistically speaking... they had a gun to their heads. The real problem here isn't Yahoo! (or the other corporations), it's the government.
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…
I wonder what the actual personal consequences are for someone going public that there is an NSL requested. I seriously doubt they'd destroy a major public company with lots of employees/voters/users; fines, maybe, and going after execs, but the Government loses most of its power to threaten things once the act is done and everything is public. I think you win in the court of public opinion if it's a broad program li…
As you point out, best to wisely pick your battle as you'll want public opinion behind you. And remember that as popular as she is, Martha Stewart still went to jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but there's a huge difference between a computer "seeing" your email and a human being searching for keywords within your email to decide whether or not to follow you around and/or arrest you. This report isn't complaining about unencrypted emails. It's about them giving an intelligence agency the equivalent of a `grep "terrorism" | tail -f` for all their users' email. Without a warrant. (Not that a warrant coul…
You're right, that US govt bulk-scanning is terrifying, especially without warrants. But what happens when Facebook scans your private chats and reports your illegal doings to the police? ( http://www.infowars.com/facebook-monitors-your-private-messa... ) What data restrictions do we have that would prevent $dataCompany from sharing data with other actors? I'm sure a "privacy policy" can do something, but in the end,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just pressure, it's an order by government. Court orders aren't really optional. And as much as you might think this is a huge problem, it's a bigger problem with companies aren't restrained by government orders. Imagine if Exceleon politely declined to allow nuclear inspections.
There is almost always a choice. Exhibit 1: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ Exhibit 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most damning part of this story is that Mayer decided to comply without telling her chief security officer. That really does make it look like Yahoo rolled over without a fight.
Knowing Stamos' background, it's possible that she was specifically required not to tell him.
Surely there was evidence somewhere? If Stamos wasn't briefed as to the situation and a security engineer found the rootkit on their own how could they be bound by the terms of an NSL / gag order?