191–200 of 417 posts
Anyone remembers this? > Barack Obama: NSA is not rifling through ordinary people's emails. US president is confident intelligence services have 'struck appropriate balance', he tells journalists in Berlin edit: link fixed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/19/barack-obama-n...
However, not all of them will go to prison -- only those who cross the politicians will ever be tried and convicted.
I imagine Yahoo! Mail engineers being royally pissed about this. Well, I suppose that includes all Yahoo! folks who are still putting real effort into improving Y!'s services. Every odd day something surfaces about Y!'s execs questionable practices and decisions, every even day problems, leaks, bad press. Moral must have hit rock bottom. Maybe the Yahoo! Board should have surveyed the startups scene, looking for foun…
You may have missed the part where Yahoo engineers implemented this scheme, they are to blame as much as management here, possibly more because they could've walked away and gotten a different job without much trouble, but management had a responsibility to the whole organization. Contrast with the rumors that Apple engineers were prepared to refuse & resign if ordered to share the iPhone's encryption keys.
While it is damning that Mayer didn't go to Stamos about this and went straight to the email team, it's hard to say whether she felt it was necessary to tell him, or was even allowed to, since we don't see the court orders and what they entail. It's really easy to be against this and play armchair preacher but this is something she probably had no choice in, in many ways. Also, I'm wondering if this story is bigger b…
Are you serious? It's newsworthy because we have proof they did it.
If we had proof Google or Facebook did it, then it would be news, too. And probably much bigger news, because nobody really cares about Yahoo anymore, especially after its sale to Verizon.
In fact, check social media and Reddit. A story about Wikileaks hinting at Google manipulating search results to favor a certain US candidate is already being talked about. And that's despite the latest trend to hate on Wikileaks because they focus too much (?!) on exposing Clinton's corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you slip something like this past a corporate security team? Stamos and @bcrypt never struck me as individuals that were "asleep at the wheel". 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?
This seems like the more interesting question. Whether Mayer went around him willingly or by legal requirement is basically unanswerable, except to note that the email team chose to do the same. There's not much to say when we can't tell collusion from compulsion. The question of accidental discovery, by contrast, is a fascinating one. A gag order couldn't possibly compel someone who made the discovery on their own (…
If the company was gagged, I don't see how it would matter whether company employees knew about it in advance or found it by accident. Either way, the company is still gagged.
Also, while your comment makes common sense, national security restrictions don't have to make sense to be legal. For example there is information that is "born classified," meaning that even if it is independently developed, totally separate from the defense apparatus, it's still considered classified!
In China and Russia, it is well known that all oligarchs are corrupt. However, not all of them will go to prison -- only those who cross the politicians will ever be tried and convicted.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they've already "made an example" of the only company to truly stand in their way. Look at Qwest - you talk to the average citizen and their takeaway was that justice was served | A corrupt CEO ran the company into the ground and went to prison. Hurrah! Don't pay attention to the fact he denied installing what he considered unconstitutional wire taps for the NSA resulting in the government pulling almost a bill…
The Joseph Nacchio story is very complicated and not the best example of the point you are making, sadly. Qwest was undeniably naughty with the books on his watch and they had a case. I agree it sucks, just saying he's not the best example.
Plainly, there's no reason to take a company's compliance as a sign that they 'have nothing to hide'. Likelier, it was in part because they did that they complied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like she was a pretty terrible CEO all-around. But as a user, I would never use a service run by Marissa Mayer again. She lost that trust for good.
> But as a user, I would never use a service run by Marissa Mayer again. She lost that trust for good. Realistically, this is every American company. Why trust anyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Joseph Nacchio story is very complicated and not the best example of the point you are making, sadly. Qwest was undeniably naughty with the books on his watch and they had a case. I agree it sucks, just saying he's not the best example.
Which isn't to say that government organizations only ask companies with unquestionably above board accounting to engage in legally dubious initiatives. Plainly, there's no reason to take a company's compliance as a sign that they 'have nothing to hide'. Likelier, it was in part because they did that they complied.
I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted. They had a case, and while the conclusion I was responding to is extreme, Qwest's accounting fraud ran into the billions and they had a pretty strong case that Nacchio profited from that. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree nor am I saying I don't think Nacchio is notable for taking on the feds, just that Qwest is not a good example of what happens when you do because the government had a legitimate gripe with the books.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isn't the whole premise that the Big Companies actually control the government? "They threaten the full weight of the US government's wraith and then tie every order up with classifications and gag orders." full weight? You mean like a small fine ? That's what happened to Wells Fargo. The govt . seems really angry about it, but what can they really do to a corp that is considered an entity?
Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds. It's so important that these leaks go public for two critical reasons: 1) with that type of financial regulatory environment for public companies, the only way to create incentives for that type of consumer protection play is when it has monetary consequences if they do nothing…
Will this meme never die on HN? There is an obvious counter-example: Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.
The idea that "maximizing shareholder value" is some sort of inescapable Faustian bargain is just not supported by the facts. People who run corporations might choose to act unethically, in order to maximize a certain outcome, but they are not forced to do so by the mere fact of running a for-profit corporation.
To the extent there is a structural problem in public corporations, it is one of executive incentive, not shareholder obligation.