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

Cowards

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 240 posts

Re: Cowards

#71

Post by s00pcan »

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…

Or, in the timeless words of Robert Oppenheimer: "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds."

meaningless, irrelevant words.

Re: Cowards

#72

Post by kllrnohj »

md224 wrote: post #21
staunch wrote: post #18

I'd think most programmers can understand their reasoning behind creating "secure portals". If you're being forced to hand data over to the government you may as well do it securely and consistently. Rather than some ad hoc process of burned CDs or USB drives, just create some simple software that makes the process secure, reliable, and traceable. The alternative is USB drives and Fedex envelopes, which is harder to…

I don't know if Arrington is saying they shouldn't have built the portals... I think he just wants them to openly admit it and be transparent about the work they're doing with the government.

Kind of like this? http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests

Re: Cowards

#74

Post by cerebrum »

scythe wrote: post #62
treeface wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point the OP is making is that if it were someone like Mark Zuckerberg, the protest wouldn't be futile. It would likely trigger a nationwide debate about the constitutionality of the program and it would possibly be overturned in court.

The point of my post is that these people are surrounded by other people to whom they have obligations. You can't respond to two words without considering the context of the paragraph! It should be obvious that even a so-called "successful" action comes with extreme stress on one's associates. It means subjecting other people to risk. This cannot be considered lightly.

I don't get your point on obligations. He has a family ok, but nothing would prevent him from resigning from Facebook and writing a post explaining his reasons for doing so(unwillingness to spy on its users). He would still be a rich man able to provide for his family and there are tons of others who could step into his place.

I'm not saying he should do that but with the amount of money he has he can afford to lose a job and still don't worry about his financial future.

Re: Cowards

#76

Post by [deleted] »

sage_joch wrote: post #6
jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Cowards

#77

Post by adventured »

milkshakes wrote: post #27
hamburglar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I especially liked the fake incredulity: why would some of the richest people on earth not want to be turned into the next Bradley Manning? Well gee, I simply can't imagine their motivations!

I, for one, would love to see the government try to Bradley Manning Mark Zuckerberg for telling the truth. It would at least be more interesting than the current Orwellian dialogue we are having with our government and corporate leaders, and it would probably be more substantive too.

Nobody really wants to end up as the first Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the new fascist America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky

Re: Cowards

#78

Post by hkmurakami »

*"It is further ordered that no person shall disclose to any other person that the FBI or NSA has sought or obtained tangible things under this Order."

But why is that stopping them? Do they really see themselves being dragged away, Bradley Manning style – to sit for years in a prison before even being given the dignity of a trial?

Because that’s not going to happen.

Please Google, hire Mike Arrington and task him to spill all your beans so he can put his butt behind his words instead of raindancing on the sidelines.

Re: Cowards

#79

Post by adventured »

mayanksinghal wrote: post #11

Yup, because instead of expecting politicians who made the laws and judges who approved the FISA orders, let's call out the CEOs. I don't even understand the outrage that most US citizens are showing at the moment for the said firms even after realizing that any access that may have been provided was through the channels that the governments had 'legally' set up. And that at least some of the companies had resisted.…

The private henchmen that help make police states possible, should always be called out. The government could never even remotely come close to implementing their policies without vast help from the private sector.

Re: Cowards

#80

Post by reeses »

btilly wrote: post #25

Nice. Quote the NY Times article describing how things work, and fail to quote the bit where the employees tasked with responding to FISA orders, and who were possibly involved in the program, were legally not allowed to inform the CEO of what they were doing. CEOs who are not informed can release statements indicating the depth of their ignorance without being deliberately dishonest. That said, the alleged situation…

First, since we do not know the information obtained, we can't say if the CEO or CFO should be informed.

If the scope of what they were required to deliver included information that could have an impact on the financial disclosures of the company[1] then, under Sarbanes-Oxley, they are at least required to put controls in place to communicate or prevent inaccurate financial reporting. This could also be why the CFO was not involved in the denials, because they've at least separated NTK.

As for the portal, the lowest common denominator would be an ftp server. Maybe they put it on fbiguy3@gmail.com's Google Drive so he had to log in. I'd like to think I'd encrypt it with a huge whopping GPG key, email it from a gmail to a yahoo address under my control, and ask,"Did you get that?" but I know I'd just piss down my leg and give them what they wanted.

Finally, Google is rather proud of the predictions or observations it can make based on (they say) trends in search queries. For example, it is now taken as fact that "Google can predict the flu better than the CDC/WHO/etc." I would not be surprised if Google and other companies could tell at least how many FISA requests have probably been generated by segmenting requests for related searches. (Of course, LexisNexis, FindLaw, and the like would have even better information when paying customers do their due diligence on compliance with unreasonable requests.)

[1] E.g., Send us all credit card information for customers from outside the USA.

Post reply on HN