Investor Lawsuit Blames NSA For $12B Loss In IBM Value 204
Jah-Wren Ryel writes "IBM Corp has been sued by the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund which accused it of concealing how its ties to what became a major U.S. spying scandal reduced business in China and ultimately caused its market value to plunge more than $12 billion." While anyone can file a lawsuit, being sued by an institutional investor is a little different than being sued by John Q. Disgruntled.
Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Informative)
The word is Nazgul.
Re:6.4 percent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Capitalism Democracy? (Score:2, Informative)
i dont think you understand the underlying problem. American companies CANT say no to the government, because they get shutdown. dont you remember lavabit? he did say no to the NSA, and then they started prosecuting him for not giving them the information they wanted.
You've kind of scrambled the history there.
Companies do say no to the government all the time unless the government has the actual right or power to make a demand. In Lavabit's case, Lavabit was defying a court order that only became necessary when they didn't meet a much more limited request from the FBI, which the FBI has the power to make. And it was Lavabit's choice to do that - both the defiance, and the shutdown. Lavabit's owner had a bad business model predicated on making promises he couldn't legally keep and stay out of jail or in business. That was a failure waiting to happen.
In a way I find it ironic that so many people here defend Lavabit given the large number of complaints you see on Slashdot about corporations breaking the law, owning the government, etc. At the end of the day, Lavabit was just another corporation that wasn't willing to obey the law.
You can make a reasonable argument that the government has too much power in this regard, but that is a different discussion.
as long as there is no oversight on things like the NSA, there will always be abuse. as long as there is no oversight on the NSA, companies cant really ever deny them access.
You must have missed some discussions. The NSA has oversight, and lacks the power to issue warrants or court orders itself. Even when it obtains a warrant or court order those warrants and court orders can be challenged in court.
Re:Let Me Get This Straight (Score:5, Informative)
They may as well be suing the NSA, considering what would come out in discovery if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Or rather, what won't come out, in the interest of "national security."
Re:Capitalism Democracy? (Score:4, Informative)
Your paranoia does not extend to established business, which have the option to fight back but choose not to.
Oh how I pine for the day when I believed that shit. We were such a more innocent populace, weren't we? Go look up MKULTRA to start, and follow the Wikipedia links from there for a few hours. CEOs of companies, deans of universities, directors of hospitals, they were all in on it and that was the 1950s.
You think that sort of thing isn't going on now? The "option to fight back," oh good heavens, someone catch me before I pass out from laughter.
Re:Capitalism Democracy? (Score:2, Informative)
The members of the FISA court are public record, they are judges from other courts that rotate through the FISA court. The function of the FISA court is documented. You seem disinterested in the facts of the matter.
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT - 2012 Membership [fas.org]
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [fjc.gov]
Re:Let Me Get This Straight (Score:4, Informative)
The US gov likes to try color of law, state secrets and really push the need for expensive cleared legal staff to keep the tame US press away.
The US Constitution covers all actions by the NSA domestically and no US "gov" granted US "immunity" laws can legally out pace that
In the end the staff are usually cleared and internal changes are 'made' just to make the cases fail to gain any more domestic traction and US press attention.
Then you had Snowden who did the smart thing and went to the press, escaping the 'internal' US gov legal trap that is domestic whistleblower protections.