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

Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 378 posts

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#271

Post by hueving »

akira2501 wrote: post #186
bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

> I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. Upholding your obligations is a requirement to receiving the protection of the government as you conduct your business. It's a two-way street. > Especially when it looks like this whole thing is Google specific. The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopo…

>Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards.

Completely irrelevant. There are no US laws against private companies building censorship tools in the US, let alone in China.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#272

Post by hueving »

chc wrote: post #268
derf_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > What about all the other American companies doing business in China? > We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Wouldn't that provide the greatest reduction in harm? There's actually a name for laws that target one individual while ignoring others guilty of the same behavior, and that's a "bill of attainder" [0]. They're banned by the US Constitution and also every…

What's being suggested here isn't even kind of similar to a bill of attainder, not even if you really squint. This is like saying, "You can't prosecute me for theft before you prosecute this other thief, because that's a bill of attainder." No court would entertain that argument.

There is no law against what Google is doing. This is nothing like the theft argument.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#273

Post by hueving »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #210
derf_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > What about all the other American companies doing business in China? > We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Wouldn't that provide the greatest reduction in harm? There's actually a name for laws that target one individual while ignoring others guilty of the same behavior, and that's a "bill of attainder" [0]. They're banned by the US Constitution and also every…

These standards don't only apply to Google, though. They can be applied to anyone, which makes your comparison bills of attainder seem kind of odd.

What standards are you referring to? There are no US standards or laws against what Google is proposing.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#274

Post by dragonwriter »

pdkl95 wrote: post #269
rifung wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the comment you're replying to meant more that they should be obliging businesses to do things but not specific businesses. E.g. make laws that apply to all companies as opposed to picking on one company or another. So I think you're actually agreeing since gravity applies to all things vs arbitrarily deciding which things to pull down.

Bills of attainder (laws that target a specific person or group of people) have always been unconstitutional. The are explicitly prohibited federally in Article 1, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder ... shall be passed. States are explicitly prohibited in Section 10: No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder ... Any legislation that specifically targets Google would be quickly overturned by the court.

A Bill of Attainder is much narrow than any legislation that targets a particular actor; this is a case where the specific details matter a lot (as does the mood of the Supreme Court, whose tests on this issue have evolved over time in shifting directions.)

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#275

Post by hueving »

gunnihinn wrote: post #28
bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

> Once government gets involved and starts playing favorites, everything gets messed up. OK. Is it more or less messed up than that a private corporation can and is willing to perform surveillance on foreign citizens on behalf of those citizens' government that would be unacceptable anywhere else?

It's par for the course. Cisco helped China build the GFW. If you want to prevent business in China related to censorship, then pass a law that does that. Don't senselessly target Google just because it's popular with consumers.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#276

Post by toss1 »

mulmen wrote: post #149
toss1 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, YES, to the extent that the foreign policy is supporting & maintaining institutions & policies necessary for continued open democratic societies. By virtue of the US' historically strong support for open democracies (albeit often flawed or failed), and historical accident, it essentially now falls to the US to attempt to maintain it around the world. To the extent that we have failed to maintain and support…

I'm all for the US government supporting open democracy through foreign policy. The US electorate influences this policy. I don't want Google making decisions based on anything other than how to make money legally.

Then you are essentially demanding either that Google: 1) actively support anti-democratic, anti-human rights activities to the extent that they're willing to pay, or

2) that the USGovt simply ban them from doing biz in those countries, or

3) that the USGovt ban doing biz of a certain type, with likely arguments around the edges of that type.

4) or something else that I'm missing.

Which are you proposing?

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#277

Post by justinclift »

hueving wrote: post #271
akira2501 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. Upholding your obligations is a requirement to receiving the protection of the government as you conduct your business. It's a two-way street. > Especially when it looks like this whole thing is Google specific. The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopo…

>Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. Completely irrelevant. There are no US laws against private companies building censorship tools in the US, let alone in China.

Not yet. Maybe there should be. ;)

With Google, it seems pretty fair to consider them a Monopoly in several areas. They also appear to be well down the path to abusing their Monopoly(ies?).

Isn't that generally where regulators should become involved?

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#278

Post by rapind »

meko wrote: post #265
bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

I wonder when Americans lost the idea of 'government for the people, by the people'. They see the government as some spOoOoOKy entity when the reality is the government is the only thin barrier of protection people have against actors who want to prey on them. Businesses are beholden to profit, individuals beholden to themselves. Imagine what your life would be like without the bill of rights, or the constitution, la…

I agree that some level of government is absolutely essential, and you're right, bad actors would do even more damage than they already do. I don't think it's clear what that level is (Libertarian vs. Socialist), but I'm skeptical we can have a reasonable discussion about it until we reduce financial influence in politics.

The lack of trust is due to the image of politicians shaking hands and benefiting from corporate spend (Citizens United etc.). Significantly reduce that influence and work towards earning the trust of the people back. The whole "Drain the Swamp" con got a lot of votes.

On it's face, the situation is obviously ridiculous isn't it?

1. Politicians need large sums of money to win elections (problem #1).

2. Corporations and wealthy individuals are allowed to provide that money (problem #2).

3. We expect politicians to police their donors (obvious conflict).

When there's riches (and power... but that's unavoidable) involved you end up with more opportunists than idealists.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#279

Post by korantu »

meko wrote: post #265
bilbo0s wrote: post #7

I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…

I wonder when Americans lost the idea of 'government for the people, by the people'. They see the government as some spOoOoOKy entity when the reality is the government is the only thin barrier of protection people have against actors who want to prey on them. Businesses are beholden to profit, individuals beholden to themselves. Imagine what your life would be like without the bill of rights, or the constitution, la…

Government has tendency to grab all the power it can. Combined with monopoly on violence this is a combination that rightfully makes people wary of that. So people came up with Bill of rights, constitution, and other constructs to safeguard government behaviour.

Re: Ex-Google Employee Urges Lawmakers to Take on Company

#280

Post by stale2002 »

oska wrote: post #256
oconnor663 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, my biases are much more in favor of the US govt than of China's, for all the obvious reasons. But we have to be able to see that this is opening a huge can of worms. For example, I think it's pretty troubling that the French government banned a bunch of Muslim religious garments. Does that mean I should advocate that various US companies need to stop doing business with France? Clearly there's _some_ level of a…

> For example, I think it's pretty troubling that the French government banned a bunch of Muslim religious garments. You're either misinformed on the French legislation or, less charitably, willfully misrepresenting it. The legislation [1] passed by the French government was a ban on face coverings in public spaces. It included covering the face with balaclavas, full face helmets, masks and yes, full face veils such…

Sure, but the entire reason that it was created was to target religious garb.

All the other stuff has zero relation to why it was created in the first place.

It would be like banning cross-shaped necklaces, and trying to pretend that this isn't targeting Christianity, because it technically targets all cross shaped necklaces and not just religious ones.

Post reply on HN