3 ms·

People like to anthropomorphize companies as having a conscience, but you're right: they're just autonomous control structures with the goal of making as much m

by exelius 11y ago

People like to anthropomorphize companies as having a conscience, but you're right: they're just autonomous control structures with the goal of making as much money as possible. Sometimes their leaders will make bad decisions prioritizing money now over money later, but ultimately such decisions are often just as bad for the long-term health of the company as they are for the market (even though they may provide a short-term benefit). And for everyone who says Microsoft should have told the NSA to shove it, just consider how quickly a major CEO can be taken down by the government: Jeff Smisek, widely considered one of the two most powerful men in the airline industry, was forced out of his position as CEO of United Airlines as part of a government corruption scandal with no more fanfare than a tersely worded press release. He has yet to be charged with anything, but criminal charges are inevitably coming. Any company that does business with the US government (as Microsoft does) is likely participating in some form of corruption or another. All they have to do is investigate that corruption and long jail sentences for senior executives will follow. It's essentially the NSA's version of "plata o plombo".

hga 11y ago
You're forgetting the direct example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007 – charges he and many others claim are U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001. Given the iffiness of such charges when it's your own company's stock, we have to at least entertain the proposition that refusing to work with the NSA is a ticket to Federal prison. Qwest is said to have been the only big company that refused.
- exelius 11y ago
  Yeah; I remember that one too. The Smisek one was just more recent, and Smisek was also a much more visible CEO than Nacchio given United's place in the airline industry. From what I can tell, the Smisek issue may have genuinely involved some wrongdoing, but Smisek may only be involved because the ultimate target is Chris Christie. But he was a titan of his industry, and when he left there was no retirement party or farewell video: just a new guy sitting in his chair and a short press release explaining that a change had been made. Nobody is immune. But yeah, that's the jist of it. Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of.
  - hga 11y ago
    Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. That's the thesis of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...), that: The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.... He'll have a lot more examples, I'm sure. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of. Especially since the Feds have no compunctions against going after your family if they can't pin something on you. E.g. junk bond figure Michael Millikan, who's real crime was creating a market for poorly managed companies.

by exelius 11y ago

hga 11y ago

You're forgetting the direct example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007 – charges he and many others claim are U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001. Given the iffiness of such charges when it's your own company's stock, we have to at least entertain the proposition that refusing to work with the NSA is a ticket to Federal prison. Qwest is said to have been the only big company that refused.

exelius 11y ago
Yeah; I remember that one too. The Smisek one was just more recent, and Smisek was also a much more visible CEO than Nacchio given United's place in the airline industry. From what I can tell, the Smisek issue may have genuinely involved some wrongdoing, but Smisek may only be involved because the ultimate target is Chris Christie. But he was a titan of his industry, and when he left there was no retirement party or farewell video: just a new guy sitting in his chair and a short press release explaining that a change had been made. Nobody is immune. But yeah, that's the jist of it. Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of.
- hga 11y ago
  Refusing to comply with an NSA order will likely just end you up in jail on something else because the government has the power to lock you up. That's the thesis of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...), that: The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.... He'll have a lot more examples, I'm sure. So we can't hold the companies who complied with them entirely responsible, as those companies are made up of individuals who have families to think of. Especially since the Feds have no compunctions against going after your family if they can't pin something on you. E.g. junk bond figure Michael Millikan, who's real crime was creating a market for poorly managed companies.