Tech Firms Planning Highly Irate Letter To Government Requesting Transparency 139
Nerval's Lobster writes "a 'broad alliance' of 63 technology companies and civil liberties organizations plan on demanding more transparency about U.S. government surveillance programs, according to a new report in AllThingsD. Those companies and organizations will reportedly ask the government to allow them to report more accurate information about user-data requests. At the moment, federal agencies forbid Google, Microsoft, and other tech vendors from reporting more than a broad numerical range; for example, Google might announce as part of its Transparency Report that it received between 0-999 National Security Letters (issued by agencies as part of national security investigations) in 2009. 'We seek permission for the same information to be made available regarding the government's national security–related authorities," reads a portion of a letter that will be reportedly published July 19 and signed by all those tech companies. "This information about how and how often the government is using these legal authorities is important to the American people, who are entitled to have an informed public debate about the appropriateness of those authorities and their use.' This is all continuing fallout from Edward Snowden's leaks of top-secret documents alleging that the NSA maintains a program called PRISM that allegedly siphons personal information from the databases of the world's largest tech companies. Ever since, those companies (which have all denied participation in PRISM) have been anxious to show the world that they only give the government as little user data as possible. This new push for more 'transparency' plays to that strategy, and the stakes couldn't be higher—if consumers and businesses lose faith in their IT providers' ability to preserve privacy, the latter's very existence could be at risk."
Ummm... (Score:1)
Yeah well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...color me skeptical, but that looks more like PR damage-control tactics since they very well played lapdog.
I maybe would have bought it if their reaction was immediate.
So what you're saying is that maybe they should have tried fighting the warrants? Maybe should have taken legal action so they could legally disclose information about the programs?
Guess what- they did all that. You just weren't paying attention because there wasn't a sensational media story about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what- they did all that. You just weren't paying attention because there wasn't a sensational media story about it.
Right, and isn't that the whole problem? They couldn't make it public. They couldn't make a big deal of it.
I wish it were illegal to ever squelch the fact that you are being squelched.
Even if they reported more "accurate" numbers... (Score:4, Insightful)
... could we trust them?
"Highly Irate"? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comfy.
Re: (Score:2)
better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just release the data and see if anyone has the balls to convict them of something. I bet not.
Ah, you bet not. Well, that decides it then. The CEOs of these corporations need have no fear of being thrown in prison if you "bet not".
Most of the time, corporate actions produce consequences that fall on the corporation as a whole. But in criminal matters, it's not uncommon that the corporate veil is pierced and the individual decisionmakers are prosecuted personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in criminal matters, it's not uncommon that the corporate veil is pierced and the individual decisionmakers are prosecuted personally.
Would that be like the fraud that brought about the financial services crisis or more like the trillions of dollars of drug money laundered by the big banks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never wait for the government to do something. Just release the data and see if anyone has the balls to convict them of something. I bet not.
It is a better idea, if they really want something to change. Begging for permission almost never creates change in the social order. If anybody has an hour and a half, watch this lecture [youtube.com] about the 'Renegade History of the US' and how the beggars weren't the ones who changed things.
That said, I'm doubtful they'll do more because it's never been the corporations who i
Writing on the wall... (Score:3)
Transparency (Score:2)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
What would happen... (Score:2)
....if all 63 published the info anyway? Safety in numbers, yes....
Re: (Score:2)
Then the next cushy billion-dollar government contract would go to SAIC instead of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the next cushy billion-dollar government contract would go to SAIC instead of them.
Uhh, I don't think government contractors are the people clamoring for disclosure, rather the tech companies themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is a government contractor.
Re:What would happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind, that data is useless. The real threat is that the NSA likely has equipment redirecting data out of these companies without their direct knowledge. They probably even have staff working there to help facilitate their data collection. The NSA could sink any of these companies at the flick of a switch. So the idea that they're going to threaten the NSA with anything is rather silly. Also, they are likely the recipients of a lot of corporate secrets the NSA pulls in from around the world.
My bet is these companies said something like "Um... NSA? Yea... we're looking pretty bad over here... would it be ok if... I mean... could we send a strongly worded letter.... and uh...."
NSA: "No problem... we'll even write it for you! Now put that dress back on, we want you to look pretty for this next part..."
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the real problem something else? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only time they'd need to make a request is when:
a) The data is from before they've been collecting
b) The data in their database is not yet nicely formatted for easy access
c) They are missing the encryption keys, for some reason
Isn't the splitter the big worry? And that these requests are just a small part? Combined with the fact that I'm not an American, this means they can collect a huge database of my personal data, and look at it any time, without asking anyone for permission. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what's going on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand.
No, you do understand
isn't this all a bit irrelevant?
relative to whay you suggest is the main concern- yup. it's called propaganda. nothing like the smell of it in the morning.
Isn't the splitter the big worry?
Yup. +1 for listening to the logical parts of your brain.
You might have fun reading about the crusade I've been on for the last 9 or 10 months- (and longer really)
Right To Serve -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your thanks. It really means a lot. 11 more days till I get my first on the record answer from Google... I so hope they just admit I was right all along. But if they don't, you and the dozen or two others I've had see my point along the way will definitely make me feel a little less insane. It means a lot. Time will tell...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your efforts.
Is there a link to your Right to Serve effort for updates as the deadline for a response from Google is very close?
I figure there might be some legal site that tracks such things (or the states DOJ site).
It is but... (Score:2)
It might not be real. I can see the reason companies want to clarify the process is because they feel it has been misconstrued. The public opinion seems to be the "splitter" thing, like the NSA can just get any and all information at the companies on a whim, without telling anyone. So people are mad, no surprise. However what if that's not the case, if the companies are telling the truth? Maybe it is something more like the NSA has a line to these companies, and can make requests and the companies, upon dec
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. I don't care about the occasional request for data. Transparency would be good, but it's not the key issue. What I am worried about is the claim that the NSA has a splitter so that they can siphon off all the data they need. Google and Microsoft claim that the NSA does not have a backdoor, and does not have "direct" access. But if they're splitting off all the data, and have been given the encryption keys, isn't this all a bit irrelevant?
A "splitter" isn't all that easy here. What they would get with a splitter is an endless stream of often highly complex API data, HTTP from web apps and other data over a dozen protocols. The NSA would basically need to replicate all the systems of Facebook, Google, MS etc. to make any sense out of that.
I think the "no direct" access just means that the NSA has some equipment in these companies that they can control from the outside (via a web interface or so) which can select users and keywords to sieve th
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you are not an American, the rights aren't even presumed to have existed.
Why only ask for transparency of their actions? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I think they key issue we're becoming aware of is that the NSA and related security agencies operate outside of the govt. They clearly operate outside the oversight of congress and I'm starting to think they don't take orders from the president either (The executive branch does take them seriously)
This, of course, means that they operate outside the influence of these big companies, which a can only lobby congress and the president.
My fear is that the NSA operates at the behest of the NSA and the private co
Re: (Score:2)
"If they really are concerned with the extent of the surveillance, why don't they use their extensive lobbying clout to propose actual changes to the laws"
There are ample reasons to suspect they are posing here and do not actually care about this - but you are still missing the mark. Proposing changes to the laws is silly. This crap is already against the law here and has been since 1776. The problem isnt that the law allows it, the problem is that we have a government that thinks it is above the law.
Re: (Score:2)
10's of people from legal and upper middle management pleading the fifth will make for bad optics one day.
Having to remove funny videos of your own congressional chat from your own branded upload site is bad optics too.
You have a lot of cubicle staff in the USA who kept a lot of secrets who are now wondering if they will legally covered.
You have a lot of cubicle staff with multinational links who kept a lot of secrets who are n
Re: (Score:2)
These large corporations are claiming to have the people's interests in mind, yet they are only asking for a very narrow change that really doesn't affect the status quo. If they really are concerned with the extent of the surveillance, why don't they use their extensive lobbying clout to propose actual changes to the laws that would require transparency to the entire process starting with requiring judicial approval for any monitoring.
Right now, these companies are blamed for the rumored amount of monitoring. They want to be blamed for the true amount of monitoring instead. Reducing the amount of monitoring doesn't help them, if the rumors stay the same. And you don't know how much or little they have pushed back on monitoring, because they are not allowed to tell you, and they want permission to tell you.
They want transparency now... (Score:1)
For a moment there when I read the headline I thought the 63 companies were irate because the government wanted transparency on H1-B Visa requests...
transnational? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they bother with the gitmo rhetorics anymore. they could just as well claim that it's not under us jurisdiction on us soil.. and the claim us jurisdiction on foreign soil all the time for hacking.
face saving (Score:5, Insightful)
"They are violating our rights, spying on everyone and forcing us to cooperate in all of that." - "I got it! Let's send them a really stern letter!"
This is PR damage-control, nothing else. They're trying to create the impression they were unwilling accomplices.
Re: (Score:2)
This is PR damage-control, nothing else. They're trying to create the impression they were unwilling accomplices.
What exactly would you do if you were the CEO of Google, Apple or Microsoft, if you cared about your users' rights, at least when violating your users' rights gives you no benefits and if rumors about these violations hurt your company, and you didn't have any intention to go to jail?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because falling over backwards and giving in is the only reasonable choice when someone pressures you.
If I were the CEO of an international corporation with a budget that dwarfs several small countries, I would have enough legal experts on staff to check the law very carefully and make a stand when they cross the line.
I would also understand that the last thing they would do to force through a secret and very likely highly illegal program is jailing a public person.
No one expects anyone to risk being
Re: (Score:2)
This is PR damage-control, nothing else. They're trying to create the impression they were unwilling accomplices.
What exactly would you do if you were the CEO of Google, Apple or Microsoft, if you cared about your users' rights, at least when violating your users' rights gives you no benefits and if rumors about these violations hurt your company, and you didn't have any intention to go to jail?
What could you do if you were the CEO of a big company threatened by the government where you operate?
You would relocate your company HQ to another country. Simple as that.
Sending a strongly worded letter is a pure PR move. A feasibility study on relocating is what they should be doing if they are serious.
Re: (Score:2)
And where would that be? Keep in mind, it will need to be a country that:
* Has adequate infrastructure support (reliable electricity, good telecommunication lines, and so on).
* Has a deep pool of educated talent to recruit your support staff from.
* is a place your executives will not be unhappy to relocate to.
* since you're moving to get away from government surveillance, it can't be a place where you are going to be subjected to a US le
You accidentally the title (Score:2)
Already hurting their business (Score:1)
So far Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have all missed their earnings estimates for the quater. Since the quatr ended only about three weeks into the Snowden thing, this looks like a bunch of tech companies pleading with the government to let them respond to a PR disaster that is hurting sales.
Dump it all (Score:5, Insightful)
You spineless twits, you have utterly and completely shattered the trust you had. Fuck you and fuck your cloud; I hope this exposure of your complicity with the criminal organizations in D.C. costs you billions in lost business. I don't care how you do it; leak information, "oops we were hacked", whatever. Dump it all.
The fact that there is 1 person, 1 guy out of >300 million in this country who has the balls to stand up speaks volumes to who the true enemy and threat to the American people, hell the people of Earth FFS, are: the U.S. Federal government.
So either these spineless companies are trying to save face, or Snowden has still got some really juicy dirt left up his sleeve.
I really, really hope it's the latter.
The damage is already done (Score:4, Interesting)
The Most Transparent Administration (Score:1)
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said during a Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout.
What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like that this is happening, but I can't see it making any difference in itself. Yahoo fought in secret courts to protect user data, and lost. Even if US companies are trying to do the right thing, we can't trust them because we can't trust the US government.
If companies had the right to come out and say "we only gave the US data this information because we had no choice", would you still want to deal with them? The company might win sympathy points, but that clearly doesn't mean we can trust it. This is particularly true for end users outside of the US.
Its all about money. (Score:2)
How do you think the government got these companies to sign these agreements in the first place?
They were given contracts or their existing contracts were threatened if they didn't sign.
Now that its out in the open their conventional customers are threatening to stop buying their products which would spell doom for most of those companies.
Its about money. And when push comes to shove, the government can't afford to replace the private sector customer's lost with government bids. And that the deal is likely
Re: (Score:2)
contracts? hah hah hah.
who needs contracts if you can bribe(processing fees) and threaten with jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Threatening with jail wouldn't get them anywhere. They'd call their lawyers
These companies were made to agree either because they were paid or guilted into it. Remember, many companies might have been very cooperative to help track terrorists in the wake of 9/11. Most Americans were outraged by those attacks and what pervaded was a feeling of powerlessness. If you walked up to any of those people and offered them a way to make a difference most would have said "yes." It is not a coincidence that military re
Where are the journalists? (Score:2)
1. Reach out to your contacts, contacts from a few years ago, older journalists from a few years ago who had many journalists friends with quality tech contacts.
1.5 Offer to share the fame.
1.6 Read up on US secretly collecting two months of press telephone records.
2. 99.98% of calls might end with a click.
3. Wait for the few calls where people that just have to bully, argue, threaten for 5-100 mins.
4. Let ex staff vent with filled ample justification r
Once trust has been broken... (Score:3)
I will never again trust another company.
Whenever I use a company's service, I will assume they (have):
1. Given the govt a backdoor
2. Sold all my private data to whoever will pay
3. Track me with cookies etc best they can.
4. Given the govt all my passwords (maybe even sold my passwords to customers)
Re: (Score:2)
I use cash a lot more these days (up to several hundred dollars at a time, above that I appreciate the credit card protections - my debit card only feels up ATM machines). Prevents retail purchase tracking and related data loss (a local grocery chain recently had a data breach and my wife's company and personal card had purchases made with the cards in question).
I'm not concerned about ATM withdrawal records, those are just accounting entries with no associated data.
Internet traffic mostly goes through a p
Douchbag Tech firms (Score:2)
Surreptitiously shares user data for feds.
Only throws a fit about it after being caught.
As far as I'm concerned they are all in bed together and equally guilty of circumventing the law.
Br'er Tech (Score:2)
* and, occasionaly, making sick fucking bank on our bills for 'services rendered'.
Am I the only one (Score:2)
...who has a flashback to Team America with that headline?
Tech Industry: I'm sorry, but we must be firm with you. Stop spying, or else...
NSA: Or else what?
Tech Industry: Or else we will be very very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Re:Screw 'em all (Score:5, Interesting)
A highly irate letter only after they were publicly embarrassed. How self-serving. Fuck these companies.
A balanced consideration is in order: Should we warmly regard these oh. so. heroic. companies for their bold stance? Hardly, this is snivelling PR drivel of the highest order.
However, considering the relative number of important friends possessed by "The Constitution" and "Shareholder Value" respectively, is it not a convenient thing that NSA activity be perceived(and ideally actually be) bad for influential American corporations?
Isn't it extremely useful that all American 'cloud' and telecommunications companies now have a PR problem on their hands(and quite possibly a sales problem, EU privacy mandates aren't going to make moving EU customer data onto American servers any more legal if you do business on that side of the pond, and do enjoy selling foreign governments your products on a "Don't worry, it'll be just between you, us, and the American Clandestine Services..." basis)?
Outfits like the EFF and ACLU, not to mention people like Snowden and Manning who take great personal risk, have the moral high ground; but perhaps less so with the 'army of effective lobbyists and vast financial resources'. These companies, by contrast, are mere mercenaries; but may prove useful for so long as NSA spying harms their interests, rather than serves as a revenue stream(looking at you, telco wiretapping fees).
Re:Screw 'em all (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume too much. This "irate letter" seems a lot more like a negotiating tactic than anything else. Remember, these corporations signing the letter are among the most privileged of all corporations, in terms of how the government treats them. They have their own personal tax laws, that allow them to claim that their profits are all earned in Luxemburg, and they have private countries where they keep their intellectual property so they don't have to pay taxes here. They are given special treatment from the local level right on up to the federal government. They have enjoyed decades of protection from anti-trust legislation (and yes, that includes Microsoft, even with their successful prosecution). These companies are a part of the government as are the biggest banks and the biggest energy companies.
I believe that behind closed doors, Google, Microsoft, et al, are just fine with the surveillance state, because it plays to their strengths and they're already on the inside. I'm not sure NSA spying harms their interests in any way.
Re:Screw 'em all (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that behind closed doors, Google, Microsoft, et al, are just fine with the surveillance state, because it plays to their strengths and they're already on the inside.
I don't think you have any evidentiary basis on which to base that judgment.
It wouldn't surprise me if Google and Microsoft have convinced themselves that whatever they did was right. Moreover, I find it easy to believe that the exact extent of their complicity (unlike, say, the extent of the complicity of telcos) was exaggerated in the leaked documents themselves, and they are genuinely pissed off that they can't set the record straight (as they see it).
Did they go further than you or I or any other civil liberties-minded person would? Almost certainly. But how far did they actually go? We don't know, and they're not allowed to say.
It's rich that the NSA gets to spin this as "people are talking crap about stuff they don't know anything about" (e.g. "the PRISM isn't a programme, just the name of a specific database" line) . What the hell did they expect? No, we don't have complete information first-hand from the people who truly understand it. That's exactly the problem.
So I applaud the tech companies for actually trying to disclose more. More information means we have a better basis on which to judge them, and judge them we shall.
Re: (Score:1)
It wouldn't surprise me if Google and Microsoft have convinced themselves that whatever they did was right.
Google and Microsoft are not people, even if they are corporations. They do not convince themselves of anything. There is no moral right, wrong, or in between. Corporations exist to crush the competition and dominate whatever market they focus on, and to convince the consumers to give the greatest part of their yearly wealth to them instead of the other corporation. Image and public relations are part of that, but please don't try to give them a moral conscience.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you know what I meant.
Some department of or office in those companies is responsible for taking in requests from law enforcement or intelligence, analysing their legal status and whether or not they are obliged to comply, and then responding to those requests. At some point, that group of people, in consultation with lawyers, decided what was the proper response. It is that group of people to whom I am assigning a moral conscience.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclose more or lie more?
As a foreigner I would never ever put my personal or my companys information in an American cloud as I am "too certain" or "too afraid" that the information is used for industrian espionage.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they are disclosing the worst of what they're doing?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. But they're disclosing different stuff than the NSA will and different stuff than Snowden is still in the process of and different stuff than Congress is trying to get.
Between them, we'll get a pretty good picture.
Re: (Score:2)
I was careful with my choice of weasel words such as "it wouldn't surprise me if".
That, and the threat of being dragged through the courts. Normally that wouldn't intimidate a big corporation, but experience with these national security cases is that they make it unnecessarily hard for your legal team to see any of the evidence against you.
Re: (Score:1)
These big corporations have been fine with their dark, secret, unholy alliance with the government until Mr. Snowden came along shining a bright light on their dark deeds in cahoots with the government. Now they fear and rightly so, that the public and many businesses will not entrust them with data services, because these tech companies have been and probably still are unwilling to sever their comfortable relationship with our out-of-control government. Now that their bottom line is affected, they are star
Re: (Score:2)
"Objection."
"Overruled."
"Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
"Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
Re: (Score:3)
Outfits like the EFF and ACLU, not to mention people like Snowden and Manning who take great personal risk, have the moral high ground; but perhaps less so with the 'army of effective lobbyists and vast financial resources'.
You lost me. But these companies do deserve to be punished for their simple network/security mistakes (that had grand consequence). They simply built the wrong software. In my opinion home serving software that keeps people in control and possession of their "papers", combined with open source pervasive encryption, was and remains the obvious right answer. These companies should be firing the inneffective employees that didn't see this coming long ago, and choose a better strategy than "wait for the day
Re: (Score:3)
There is no infrastructure currently to support what you are talking about much less ten years ago. Most businesses don't have servers and switching and storage. They use ISPs and data centers. Most individuals certainly don't have this stuff. Economies of scale are what makes it all affordable. This means you have to store data offsite and run your apps offsite. If it isn't Google it's Rackspace or Amazon web services or your local collocation hub sitting near a T3 backbone.
You are deluded to think that it
Re: (Score:2)
There is no infrastructure currently to support what you are talking about much less ten years ago.
I call pure B.S. There are many ISPs that allow residential users to run servers. You're B.S. is so exceptionally transparent, I can quote an anonymous leak of Google's CEO and CFO that show precisely that there is no technical lack of supporting infrastructure-
(score 5 unrefuted Anonymous Coward leak post of Larry Page and Patrick Prichett (CEO and CFO of Google))
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357 [slashdot.org]
Most businesses don't have servers and switching and storage. They use ISPs and data centers.
OK, so what, don't care. You are like one of those people for jailing flag burne
Re: (Score:2)
When the shit hits the fan you distance yourself from the scapegoat anyway you can. Temporarily side with those organizations who have a good name. I don't think these companies really cared until it became a PR issue for them. They'll all point fingers at the bad guy (feds) until such a time when it has all blown over. Then, back to business. (still looking at you, same as parent, telcos).
One of many societal problems we face is the short attention span we have for this kind of stuff (and not just gov
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe if they put some weight behind real change it would be worth it. I think they can see that most of their future revenue is going to come from services where they host user data. But if people understand that the Third Party Doctrine, or Business Records Exemption mean that that "their" data is totally and utterly insecure, then the market for those services will be severely damaged. America doesn't have much going for it businesswise any more -- we have a weapons industry and flush government contractors -- but if the government is broke because nobody has anything but a Walmart job, those industries are dead. Technology is the government's biggest potential cash cow -- it should probably NOT shoot it in the head.
I think the tech companies might actually have "good luck with that" perspective. But they have to be willing to make the point. And then support at minimum, legislative limitations on the both Third Party Doctrine and Business Records Exception. Even more preferable, would be a Constitutional amendment defining digital content (including metadata) whereever stored (drives, wire, airwaves) as "papers" and that government access to such data is not affected by where it is stored, i.e., it remains a person's private stuff and unreachable without a warrant supported by probable cause, even if stored offsite so to speak.
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting weight behind a letter seems a bit fanciful.
On the other hand, they can simply present it as a demand, and state that the alternative is each of them will publish ALL the letters delivered to ANY of them and refuse to comply.
Let the DOJ or the DOD put ALL 69 Companies in jail or shut them down. Especially when the government is dependent on most of them and the citizens are customers of all of them.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
That falls in line with my own thoughts. It's time that the people showed government that government works FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.
Just publish all the details. Publish everything. Tell the government to go screw itself - they can't enforce unjust laws. Government can scream "CONSPIRACY" all they want, but if 60, 75, even 90% of people and corporations are in on it, what can government do?
A number of articles over the past weeks have shown that congress really doesn't have a clue what NSA is up to. Congress critters lack the technical understanding to figure this stuff out. But, worse, the NSA only "answers to" a small committee, and that committee isn't sharing jack-shit with the rest of congress.
Each year, congress authorizes money for NSA and the rest of government, without any accounting for that money. I think that congress should just cut that money by about 75% and tell NSA to make do. At the same time, demand a full accounting for HOW that money is spent. If NSA doesn't have a billion dollars with which to snoop on citizens, and another billion with which to pay "analysts", then they won't be snooping and analyzing citizens. The money that they have left will be targeted specifically toward terrorism and national security.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. If all those who have received National Security Letters had published them and sought legal counsel to respond, it's likely that those letters would have been ruled unconstitutional by now. And maybe that's just my wishful thinking, but it's certain that continued lack of disclosure about these lunatic procedures will foster their wider use.
Re: (Score:2)
That falls in line with my own thoughts. It's time that the people showed government that government works FOR THE PEOPLE, not the other way around.
This is a nice idea, except that the organisations receiving these requests, and who are now apparently writing this "very strongly worded" letter, are corporations. Those corporations exist to make money, not to look after the interests of people. If the two coincide in any meaningful way, then you can expect that company to find any and every way to trumpet their willingness to look after the people, but it is a very rare company indeed that will attach enough intrinsic value to their ethical stance and t
Voting with your wallet (Score:2)
Those corporations exist to make money, not to look after the interests of people.
Sure, but they make money from people, and for better or worse, voting with your wallet often proves to be more effective than voting for your representatives.
The thing I don't understand about all these controversial security measures, whether it's monitoring communications or intrusive airport security procedures or detention without trial or whatever else, is that governments and supportive media always seem quick to tell us that most people do want the claimed security benefits and are willing to accept
Re: (Score:2)
"governments and supportive media always seem quick to tell us that most people do want the claimed security benefits and are willing to accept the unpleasantness as a result"
That is called social engineering, and predates the hacker's practice by the same name. People without a firm opinion on any subject can be swayed by being told that government and "most people" approve of whatever. Only people with firm opinions to the contrary resist the engineering.
I'm safe, only because I'm such an opinionated ol
Re: (Score:2)
People without a firm opinion on any subject can be swayed by being told that government and "most people" approve of whatever.
I can't see why that would persuade anyone...
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably somewhat asocial. I know that I am asocial. I don't give a small damn what they other kids are playing with. I like what I like, and I have zero interest in getting a G.I. Joe doll just because all the other kids have one. Thirty nine kids in school are all wearing the latest fad jeans from CK, Tommy, or whatever. I stuck with Levi's all through school.
Adult life is little better. I mean, does anyone really NEED a wall-sized plasma TV? Does ANYONE need it? Marketing departments tell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
trying to organize such a multi company movement would be treason.
--that's the real problem with secret government.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil Disobedience is not Treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think an Amendment is the only real way to reign in this stuff. And I actually believe that such an effort could get some traction from the States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they'll have to resort to the garden gnome.
Re: (Score:2)
Those corps harmed and killed average people. If you so much as sneeze in the direction of DC though, they'll fuck you every which they can because our Federal politians and appointed officials are far more valuable than anyone else on the planet. If you got a proble
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Go ahead & disclose it, you're corporations, you're above the law. The govt can't tell you what to do.
Nothing will happen, I promise you. Union carbide killed 8000 people and.... nothing. nada. zip. Same goes for the Exxon Valdez & BP.
Isn't this very timidity firm evidence that Google and company aren't as powerful as you claim? Here we have a government agency costing US businesses a lot of money and what do they do? Write letters. It doesn't get any clearer than that who's in charge. It's not Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing will happen, I promise you. Union carbide killed 8000 people and.... nothing. nada. zip. Same goes for the Exxon Valdez & BP.
The Exxon Valdez was a ship, not a company. The company was Exxon Shipping, a branch of Exxon (now ExxonMobil).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They could always break those court orders en masse. See if the government has cojones to sue each of them after those particular revelations have become public."
This is exactly what they should do. The people who make these decisions are doubtless receiving emails right now detailing every piece of dirty laundry the national insecurity state has on them, along with frightening predictions of the consequences for them if they do more than write letters.
If they actually managed to get together and make that
Re: (Score:2)
"In this situation, any vote is a vote for your masters' system."
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this is not just wrong, it's dangerously wrong.
If voting goes down they will not be forced to scrap it, they will rejoice as we make it easier for them to create electoral majorities.
Voting for third parties and sane candidates reduces, rather than increases, the claimable mandate for establishment candidates. Every. Single. Time.
This is why they make it so incredibly difficult for a third party candidat