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's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated. Many tech companies didn't even raise "arms" against the NSA invasion -- they in fact built systems to make the NSA's surveillance easier than they even needed to. In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with…
But submitting oneself the court system of the state to overturn the the secret rule of the state, on face value, looks like an exercise in futility…
And like I said below, being rewarded a golden star from the EFF to stick upon Marrissa's Fridge while remaining complicit and receive praise from those in the tech community for "trying", is quite amusing to watch. They could have been much more effective publicly denouncing such secret order and face the ramifications as a multinational corporation… you know, like HSBC's slap on the wrist for laundering drug money that the state says is always going to the terrorists.
>In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider).
Or you pull a snowden and watch the global state trip all over its own laws and the sovereignty of other nations to try and catch you.