Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#31

Post by mythz »

Ironically the only major tech company not to deny NSA involvement, is seemingly doing the most for its users privacy. Fighting against the overreaching arm of the US Govt in secret courts for the last 6 years, without any potential for publicizing their plight exemplifies Yahoo's true stance on user privacy. Actions speak louder than words, what you do when no-one's watching, without any potential of direct benefits or exposure shows Yahoo's true colors.

Which is in stark contrast against other major tech companies strategy of instead deny direct involvement, launch marketing campaigns promoting users privacy as their top priority and go as far as launching anti-privacy campaigns criticizing the privacy policies of their competitors, whilst simultaneously providing an indiscriminate fire-hose of private user data directly to the NSA.

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#32

Post by stdgy »

Companies should be commended for their efforts to fight these orders. However, let's not forget that Yahoo also handed over information to the Chinese government that led to the arrest and prolonged imprisonment of multiple people, and then tried to cover up their behavior by pretending they didn't know why the information was being requested.

I suspect that the backlash from those actions may have led the company to appeal the FISC orders, fearing similar potential future liabilities.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/11/yahoo-calls-withh...

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#33

Post by herge »

cinquemb wrote: post #23
umsm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you can "join" PRISM. You're forced in.

"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships. It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradict…

> potential short term corporate hardships

You mean prison time, like what happened to Joseph Nacchio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#34

Post by JonFish85 »

norswap wrote: post #16
yuhong wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Marissa has recently did a lot of changes to improve Yahoo.

Such as?

Probably the biggest improvement: getting the point across to a huge organization that they're not content just sitting back with things as usual. Yahoo had become the behemoth that plodded along, one step after another. Someone needed to come in and whip the company into shape, from the Veeps on down. If nothing else, she's woken the company up. And that right there is something big.

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#35

Post by cinquemb »

herge wrote: post #33
cinquemb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships. It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradict…

> potential short term corporate hardships You mean prison time, like what happened to Joseph Nacchio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

Notice I did not say "potential short term individual hardships", regardless of what he was charged and convicted of (which wasn't failure to comply with NSA orders of which he says are in retaliation of)…

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#36

Post by loginalready »

aniket_ray wrote: post #13

The complete tally for different companies is here: https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013

I suppose the big empty space on the right is where "Respects users' privacy in their own business practices" should be.

But of course this is only about the Big Bad Government.

It's an interesting cultural difference how privacy suddenly becomes in issue in the US now that it's about the government, and totally fine when people were being tracked an profiled for profit.

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#37

Post by yuhong »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #28
[deleted] wrote: post #25

[deleted]

Because they know that google is very unlikely to simply shut up shop, the shareholders would probably never allow it for one. A company can always have it's CEO replaced with someone more amenable.

In case of Google?

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#38

Post by bad_user »

cinquemb wrote: post #23
umsm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you can "join" PRISM. You're forced in.

"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships. It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradict…

> There is always a choice to be made…

No, there isn't, in case you haven't been paying attention.

When it comes to NSA, there is no "they" anymore. In the eyes of NSA, a company is not a whole, but rather a group of individuals that can face jail time, individually.

And yes, "legally" speaking, companies and individuals supposedly can fight back, but they are coerced into doing it in secret. Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off.

So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard.

Re: Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF

#40

Post by cinquemb »

bad_user wrote: post #38
cinquemb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships. It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradict…

> There is always a choice to be made… No, there isn't, in case you haven't been paying attention. When it comes to NSA, there is no "they" anymore. In the eyes of NSA, a company is not a whole, but rather a group of individuals that can face jail time, individually. And yes, "legally" speaking, companies and individuals supposedly can fight back, but they are coerced into doing it in secret. Doing otherwise can lead…

So Yahoo! "fighting back" apparently was apart of the smoke and mirrors, since apparently they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state?

>Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off.

Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats? Can't wait to see the headlines on Bloomberg for that…

>So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard.

If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…

Post reply on HN