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

U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

allthingsd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#21

Post by mrt0mat0 »

nostrademons wrote: post #14
mrt0mat0 wrote: post #10

I honestly didn't expect much from this. The part that scares me about all of this is this: if the government can't read our emails, listen to our phone calls, or see our web traffic but they have the ability to... what stops them from outsourcing the work to another country, where there is no constitutional restraint. we outsource everything else, why not our domestic spying?

The intelligence community works on the principle that it's valuable to have information that other people do not. If they outsource the spying, then other people have that information, right?

but if the people you outsource to you are their allies, they may be able to justify it. Besides, it seems the NSA has a gift for rationalizing things away

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#22

Post by mrt0mat0 »

BadCookie wrote: post #17
mrt0mat0 wrote: post #10

I honestly didn't expect much from this. The part that scares me about all of this is this: if the government can't read our emails, listen to our phone calls, or see our web traffic but they have the ability to... what stops them from outsourcing the work to another country, where there is no constitutional restraint. we outsource everything else, why not our domestic spying?

It has been reported that the NSA shares data, including raw data on Americans, with Israel. Unfortunately, what you are concerned about has already occurred. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-p...

sharing information, i think is small potatoes. showing them how to get the information on their own is what i fear. "Hey, check out this backdoor we found. Enjoy"

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#23

Post by nickff »

betterunix wrote: post #15
aspensmonster wrote: post #12

How about they stop requesting and start spilling the beans? Or at least ensure that the relevant evidence winds up in the relevant laps of the relevant journalists. The White House can selectively leak whatever it feels is beneficial to them with impunity. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a single person in any of these companies that hasn't already taken action. Just wait and see I suppose.

Part of the problem is that these companies have a lot of incentive to remain on friendly terms with the government. Suppose you are a telecom company and you want to lay some new fiber -- do you really want to be the company that rebelled against the government? Would Microsoft, which was supposed to be broken up for antitrust law violations, really want to be a company that rebels against the government? Sure, indi…

Qwest simply refused NSA surveillance requests, and were rewarded with the cancellation of a government contract and having their CEO charged with securities fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillan...

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#24

Post by vkou »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #19
aspensmonster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't expect me to actually go to jail for what I believe in, can you? Clearly, I can do more from the outside asking for permission! And I get to keep all my money too.

This comment feels really cheap to me. Two big issues: 1. Most people probably are not huge fans of this, but don't consider it a big enough deal to go to jail over it. I'm in that category (double disclaimer: not speaking in any official capacity for my company). 2. Even if someone DID think it a big enough deal, it's not easy to be a martyr. If it were, then presumably you would have already found yourself a job at…

"My job is not to be a martyr for my cause - it's to find some other sap to be a martyr for it."

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#25

Post by aspensmonster »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #19
aspensmonster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't expect me to actually go to jail for what I believe in, can you? Clearly, I can do more from the outside asking for permission! And I get to keep all my money too.

This comment feels really cheap to me. Two big issues: 1. Most people probably are not huge fans of this, but don't consider it a big enough deal to go to jail over it. I'm in that category (double disclaimer: not speaking in any official capacity for my company). 2. Even if someone DID think it a big enough deal, it's not easy to be a martyr. If it were, then presumably you would have already found yourself a job at…

I'm not languishing in prison (yet). I certainly don't find such prospects appealing in the least. But my values are not hobbies. If push came to shove, prison is where I'd go. Granted, having a publicly stated policy of whistleblowing will likely put me on the bottom of a very long list of candidates for employment at these companies. (Well, it seems not to be the case with Google yet. I get prodded by one of their recruiters every semester, asking if I'm graduating yet or not. I'm unsure of whether I have the kind of technical chops they're looking for, but I suspect that even if I do, my personal convictions would leave the deal dead in the water.)

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#26

Post by jamesaguilar »

nickff wrote: post #23
betterunix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that these companies have a lot of incentive to remain on friendly terms with the government. Suppose you are a telecom company and you want to lay some new fiber -- do you really want to be the company that rebelled against the government? Would Microsoft, which was supposed to be broken up for antitrust law violations, really want to be a company that rebels against the government? Sure, indi…

Qwest simply refused NSA surveillance requests, and were rewarded with the cancellation of a government contract and having their CEO charged with securities fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillan...

Is there evidence that the securities fraud charges were actually caused by their refusal? Or were they caused by the fact that the guy said Qwest was doing well and sold ahead of a huge downturn in prices? As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, the charges would have stuck irrespective of the NSA stuff.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#27

Post by jamesaguilar »

aspensmonster wrote: post #25
jamesaguilar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment feels really cheap to me. Two big issues: 1. Most people probably are not huge fans of this, but don't consider it a big enough deal to go to jail over it. I'm in that category (double disclaimer: not speaking in any official capacity for my company). 2. Even if someone DID think it a big enough deal, it's not easy to be a martyr. If it were, then presumably you would have already found yourself a job at…

I'm not languishing in prison (yet). I certainly don't find such prospects appealing in the least. But my values are not hobbies. If push came to shove, prison is where I'd go. Granted, having a publicly stated policy of whistleblowing will likely put me on the bottom of a very long list of candidates for employment at these companies. (Well, it seems not to be the case with Google yet. I get prodded by one of their…

Let me make sure I understand. You'd disclose your views to a potential employer, thereby letting yourself off the hook for implementing them?

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#28

Post by jamesaguilar »

CurtMonash wrote: post #7

There was a time when the trade-off was: 1. The government lied and pretends not to engage in domestic espionage. 2. To support that lie, the government didn't do much bad stuff with the results of its domestic spying. 3. Thus, the domestic spying wasn't a big deal. I think we're past that point now.

What bad stuff has the government done with the current batch of domestic spying?

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#29

Post by nly »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #9
jlgreco wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already people lobbying heavily for all the shitty things I could see a tech lobby lobbying for. MPAA/RIAA, protectionist labor unions, 'military-industrial complex', etc. Tech lacks representation though, particularly compared with how much lobbying much less affluent industries manage to do.

I think specific parts of tech, lobby specifically, for their specific interests - and those specifics aren't aligned with other players. Far be it from me to understand the finer points - but to my mind, youtube isn't a whole lot different from megaupload - but you can bet Google has top class lobbyists and lawyers, whereas megaupload did not.

Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. It's therefore accessible to copyright holders and authorities. Megaupload (and all file lockers) were set-up as if your uploads are personal and private, but to still allow files to be shared by passing around direct URLs. This is why Rapidshare (who were once one of the biggest of them all) ditched their sharing capability and are now left alone. It's the cliques that are the problem to vested interests, not the frivolous sharing.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#30

Post by aspensmonster »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #27
aspensmonster wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not languishing in prison (yet). I certainly don't find such prospects appealing in the least. But my values are not hobbies. If push came to shove, prison is where I'd go. Granted, having a publicly stated policy of whistleblowing will likely put me on the bottom of a very long list of candidates for employment at these companies. (Well, it seems not to be the case with Google yet. I get prodded by one of their…

Let me make sure I understand. You'd disclose your views to a potential employer, thereby letting yourself off the hook for implementing them?

Hardly. I'd disclose that I will not carry out immoral or unethical behaviour on behalf of my employer, and will follow all protocol in pursuit of stamping it out, up to and including whistleblowing. That sort of attitude used to be a plus, dare I say something that was implicitly understood between the two parties. It's the sort of thing that you'd think people would want to ensure wound up in the contract all new hires signed when brought on board. I find it remarkable that such a policy would make anyone unfit for employment with anyone else. I'd like to think a company like Google would agree with such a policy. Their executive chairman seems to think as much:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Post reply on HN