Cowards • Hacker News Board

Re: Cowards

#151

Post by omarchowdhury » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:07 PM UTC

e_w wrote: post #140

vadiml wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risking one’s own well being to help the community is basically a definition of an altruistic behaviour. Nobody and i mean NOBODY can reach and keep the position of CEO of big international corporation by exhibiting altruistic tendencies. The environment is too competitive and it promotes egoism and punishes altruism. (BTW, The same reasoning stand for political leadership too). So, I don’t think we can really expect…

Sorry, but this is a textbook example of oversimplification.

Isn't saying this is a oversimplification, an oversimplification?

Re: Cowards

#152

Post by rasterizer » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:07 PM UTC

Google CLO responding to the NYT et al:

We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media. It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise. We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. And we have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for user information.

https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq

Re: Cowards

#153

Post by bernardlunn » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:08 PM UTC

Danny Sullivan, who is a good source on search issues, thinks it was a check in check out system based on FISA requests. The point about not being able to mention FISA requests is then a 1st Amendment issue not 4th.

Re: Cowards

#154

Post by einhverfr » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:11 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #144

einhverfr wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely though they'd go after corporate officers for real or alleged criminal behavior (think of the "honest services fraud" charges against Jeff Skilling, reversed by the Supreme Court on the basis that the law was being stretched well beyond breaking point) and refer to the SEC for investigations.... The government has in the past gone after some extremely powerful corporations and when they had the endurance…

Again, corporate officers of large corporations generally have the resources to defend themselves. They can harass you if you're the only one, which is why everyone needs to do it. >AT&T's monopoly They spent 50 years trying to break them up and within 20 years after that they had pretty much bought each other back up again and continue to do so as time passes. You should also note that the public hated AT&T because…

Actually I think the breakup of AT&T was one of those moments when policy changed because all of the businesses got scared. When you look at the long history there, and it is a long history, it was right after that, that the government backed off from being aggressively pro-competitive.

We see a shift thus under Reagan from pro-competition to pro-oligopoly which continues and accelerates under Clinton, Bush, and Obama. It is an indication that in class warfare the elite always win.

As for AT&T getting back together, they still don't own a record label, broadcast/entertainment media, the Japanese telephone system or the major manufacturers of phones in the US and abroad to an extent anywhere near what they used to..... People forget just how big Ma Bell was at its zenith.

Re: Cowards

#155

Post by rmrfrmrf » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:17 PM UTC

soofaloofa wrote: post #142

It seems like I am in the minority here but I see nothing wrong with making a required government process more efficient. The companies in question would have to provide this information anyways and streamlining the process seems logical.

Americans don't usually take kindly to the government messing with due process.

Re: Cowards

#156

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:22 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #41

sage_joch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the hell does this even mean? It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

> You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United States of Atrocity in futile protest of its horrifying surveillance subterfuge.

He also has over a billion people who would raise hell if the US Government came down hard on him for doing nothing more than tell the truth about a government program and laws that few people would agree make sense.

Having him put it all on the table to defend his user's privacy would say more about the company than any marketing or press release ever could.

We, as individuals, are utterly powerless against our government. That's a fact. Just try to go up against the IRS or even your local Labor Board.

People like him have the ability to really disrupt the surveillance state in ways we cannot. What would happen if all major 'net CEO's and founders agreed to tell the government to stuff it? They are going to arrest all of them? They woukd have angry mobs burning down Congress. These CEO's have real power. Perhaps it's high time they start exercising it.

Re: Cowards

#157

Post by calhoun137 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:23 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #117

scythe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

Whoah, hold on, I don't think anyone is saying this is easy or there aren't risks for Zuckerberg. However to say he shouldn't stand up against tyranny and abuse of government power because he has responsibility to parties x, y and z is exactly the line of thinking that allows totalitarian governments to thrive. Government power is not absolute, that power is derived from the people. No one person can stand up to the…

Oh the irony! Obviously if Zuckerberg cared about people's privacy he would have run facebook differently.

Re: Cowards

#158

Post by samsonasu » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:25 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #147

Zigurd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it looked quite so good. The "no direct access to our servers" line spoken by all four CEOs sounded like something out of North Korea, but they all also had the option to send this message through a relatively faceless spokesperson instead of throwing their own credibility on the pyre. None of them addressed the incongruity of having all the major news outlets contradicting them, after apparently findin…

It makes sense to me that Zuckerberg and Page came out personally. The idea that all their data is open to snooping is an existential threat to their companies. If true, their user bases (and thus revenues) would plummet . They absolutely had to deny it in the strongest terms possible.

Their data /is/ open to snooping. We'll see if their user bases plummet. For some reason I doubt it.

Re: Cowards

#159

Post by whyme » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:27 PM UTC

Well Page and Zuck may not be able to tell the truth about the action, but they have enough clout to fight the Gag law itself. i.e. They could lead publicly rally's/protest against the gag laws and they could be really effective in this without breaking the law.... And yet still, they do not.

Re: Cowards

#160

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #147

Zigurd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it looked quite so good. The "no direct access to our servers" line spoken by all four CEOs sounded like something out of North Korea, but they all also had the option to send this message through a relatively faceless spokesperson instead of throwing their own credibility on the pyre. None of them addressed the incongruity of having all the major news outlets contradicting them, after apparently findin…

It makes sense to me that Zuckerberg and Page came out personally. The idea that all their data is open to snooping is an existential threat to their companies. If true, their user bases (and thus revenues) would plummet . They absolutely had to deny it in the strongest terms possible.

Isn't it too late to prevent the coming impact? Unless the news outlets backed down on the PRISM powerpoint, trust for American technologies and services for anything more serious than cat pictures is dead. Which prompts the question of why Facebook should be bothered by this at all.