41–50 of 64 posts
The message is loud and clear from Google that we need to know doublespeak when we hear it. Class is in session!
I'm curious if these orders can be served directly to mere employees that have access to install the monitoring software/hardware, with confidentiality obligations barring them from telling their employer. Another explanation may be that NSA agents simply obtained jobs at each company, and those agents installed the monitoring software/hardware without the knowledge of the companies. This would explain the dismay, and the clear embarrassment of the NSA.
I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing. [1] It would be most appropriate…
Unfortunately, it is important that all collaborators be punished. Especially since the government is trying to expand its surveillance programs to include a wider range of companies, and per reports many companies are reluctant to sign up out of fear of public backlash. There needs to be that public backlash. There needs to be negative consequences for those companies that participate.
That being said, I'd like to clarify that I don't think all forms of cooperation with government investigations are inappropriate. Very narrow and specific requests in response to explicit subpoenas being an example of something I think must be tolerated. On the other hand, blanket requests and requests for data access that would enable government to independently explore the records of millions of American citizens is something that can't be tolerated. Efforts must be made to change such policies at the same time that efforts are made to penalize the companies that collaborate and make it possible.
I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing. [1] It would be most appropriate…
But the key thing is to not waste energy on the side issue...the grab for power should always be scrutinized, and it is not an issue as simple as "Vote in a new president and live like Richard Stallman" (though neither of those ideas are bad, either)
Call me jaded...but remember how angry and energized everyone was over Aaron Swartz's death? Just six months later and we hear nary a peep about it, not even a boilerplate response to the White House petition. This is the way it is with so many issues involving the law, people get bored or conflate the wrong things...a few months later, no one really remembers.
The government has done irreparable harm to these companies, because even if they are telling the truth, they will never be able to prove it (like Obama could never prove he wasn't born in Kenya) Each new bit of evidence supporting their position will be met with just more questions. That's the problem with government spooks, their capabilities are boundless, anything the mind can imagine, and there's simply not way…
The problem with all the denials is that journalists say "Google is doing X" and Google responds "We aren't doing Y" and everyone debates whether Y = X, Y is a subset of X, or Y is something completely different. I feel as if so much could be cleared up if they would simply respond line by line to the stories by the NYTimes and Washington Post.
Which, unfortunately, puts the rest of the denial into question for me as well.
I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing. [1] It would be most appropriate…
Your post is well written and presents an interesting viewpoint, but this is completely wrong. A handfull of the most powerful and wealthiest companies in the world standing up to the US government wouldn't achieve anything? What? It would make a HUGE difference. If the people involved won't stand up for what's right due to personal fear, that's understandable. Most people wouldn't. But they shouldn't pretend it's for any other reason. To do so is a huge insult to those who do have enough courage to do the right thing in the face of huge risk--much greater risk than is faced by these frightened SV millionaires and billionaires.
>employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company
So it is possible that executives are not allowed to know what data their companies are supplying to the government.