I knew making corporations hurt over their cooperation with NSA willingly or unwillingly (by not having proper security) is going to play a major part in turning this around, although it's still early days, so I'm cautiously optimistic right now, but also very skeptical at the same time, because I'm not going to believe the first time the government says "That's it everyone - we reformed the NSA. You can all relax now". It's going to take serious reforms and transparency to make me believe it's truly "over".
Reform Government Surveillance
71–80 of 223 posts
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#72Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
Maybe, I am naive, but I'd like to believe that if Snowden had been captured, he would become a martyr and people would be on the streets now. Eventually the movement would grow strong enough that the big companies would join in.
[deleted]
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#73> we are focused on keeping user’s data secure ARGH! Close to a trillion dollars of net corporate value, and they can't afford a decent grammarian when they write an open letter to the President?! (Hint: It should be "users'".)
Good catch! I passed your comment on to Google's liaison to R.G.S., and she's working to get it fixed. Let's see how long it takes from here. :)
Great!
While we're at it, though:
- The clause "deploying the latest encryption technology" should actually be prefaced by "by", to balance the "by pushing back..."
- "We urge the US" could be made stronger by actually spelling out the full name: "We urge the United States..."
Nice site, otherwise.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.
They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relati…
I think his point was that they're all doing it for selfish reasons, not for some "principles". The principles are the public agenda, but they're really doing it because they're starting to lose business overseas - fast. So now they've taken on this "principled" crusade against the government.
I don't really mind it as long as it really works, and it's the outcome I wanted to see anyway, but I think it should be seen for what it really is. If this was really about principles, they would've done something about it years ago, not after they see their financials or relationships overseas drop because of it.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#75Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
Why focus on Snowden again?
The fact of the matter is: We have clearly seen that the governments have been lying to us the whole time.
And of course they will ultimately make some promises.
But it's too late for promises. Nobody trusts the governments anymore. Their degree of corruption is painfully obvious.
As long as there are agencies like the NSA/CIA with the insane budgets we give them, the abuse will continue (best case: it will be slowed down temporarily).
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground. On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...
I kind of like it. It's a nice blow to the straw viewpoint that corporations should have no rights to speak. Everything these companies say is informed by discussion in the media, among the public, and, yes, with elected officials. The line you want to draw is extremely fuzzy at best in reality. I have read that Genghis Khan's original plan after conquering China was to raze the farming villages to provide more pastu…
the straw viewpoint that corporations should have no rights to speak
But the CEO's also have a moral obligation to lead. Frankly, they have this obligation even if its not in the financial (narrow) interest of their company. Although what we are clearly seeing here is the 'existential' threat not only to their business models, but that will view them as compllicit in a bad thing, imho.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#77They really need to look again at how they implemented sharing to Twitter, G+ or LinkedIn; it's a mess.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#78Laws don't need to be reformed. The Constitution needs to be enforced.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not once does the name "Edward Snowden" appear anywhere on the web-page or open letter! These companies are simply grand-standing to further their own ambition. They don't care what happens to Snowden, they deny even his very existence.
They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relati…
I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.
NOt that i disagree, but I do think if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on this it would remove the stigma of self-dealing. If the "tech industry" was more broadly represented (and included say, Stanford & MIT) again this would be a much more powerful statement. But the reality, is that SV lives off of the governmnet in many indirect ways (nasa, defense, NSF grants, etc) and while they may be principled...well, I sure you get the idea. They're not that principled.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#80Statement from Microsoft:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...