4 ms·

If that were the case, then Apple would've caved in, too. Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about h

by mtgx 10y ago

If that were the case, then Apple would've caved in, too. Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about her new baby. My point is it has less to do with "Yahoo being scared about being destroyed by the US government" and more with Mayer's own personal fear of the US government, and easily caving to such threats, whether it was because of her baby, because of weak character, or because she was inexperienced as CEO didn't know how to handle this. EDIT: Also Yahoo's response to the story is such bullshit: > “Yahoo is a law abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States.” What's the law you're abiding with that says you need to implement such a backdoor? Name it. Even the FBI named the law or laws it thought would help it force Apple to put a backdoor in its phones. So if Yahoo can't even name the law, then that law or the gag order saying they can't name it are unconstitutional. Period. It also proves once again how easily Yahoo caved.

pascalmemories 10y ago
> Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about her new baby. OK, I normally think misogyny claims are over-blown and people are way too sensitive. But your comment positively reeks of misogyny. Rather than go for a down-vote, because you're able to edit your comment, I think you should reconsider the phrasing and delete the misogyny. If your comment doesn't stand without it, I believe deleting it would add to rather than subtract from, the discussion.
- skue 10y ago
  > > Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about her new baby. > OK, I normally think misogyny claims are over-blown and people are way too sensitive. But your comment positively reeks of misogyny. Rather than go for a down-vote, because you're able to edit your comment, I think you should reconsider the phrasing and delete the misogyny. Having newborn twins at home could certainly be a factor in any CEO's willingness to make an ideological stand in the face of jail time, regardless of the CEO's gender. Plus there's a wealth of feminist writing about the potential for gender disagreement when it comes to this very question, going back to Kohlberg, Gilligan, and an imaginary guy named Heinz.[1] FWIW, I do agree that any privileged group should be conscientious when discussing others who might sometimes feel like or be seen as outsiders, and that this applies to guys in tech. But your comment seems a bit over the top and risks shutting down discussion about an important topic... whether the government took advantage of the fact that Mayer had newborns at home when they pressured her to comply. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages...
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Men can also have new babies. I'm chuckling rather heavily at the fact that you are the person who brought the sexism to the discussion in an attempt to white knight a bit.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"What's the law you're abiding with that says you need to implement such a backdoor? Name it. Even the FBI named the law or laws it thought would help it force Apple to put a backdoor in its phones." A court order to enable warrantless wiretapping per FISA provisions. That's what they were doing with others per the leaks. The Sentry Eagle leaks, highest classification they had, indicated the FBI "compelled" domestic firms to "SIGINT-enable" their stuff with FISA mentioned repeatedly. It didn't define the methods they used to compel companies. So, they have some way of leaning on them with the Patriot and FISA Acts as legal support. It shouldn't surprise you given it's happening in an active, police state with apathetic citizens who haven't forced Congress to roll back the legislation. Media has been fairly complicit, too, as they're not pushing the angles that would stir people into action. They watered down the previous debates. Until these legislations are killed, there's secret courts, secret consequences, and gag orders that all these companies are faced with. Unlikely anybody will help them if they violate the rules that serve the state. So, it's on the citizenry to modify those rules so there's accountability. They mostly don't care. So, compliance with the court orders is rational choice by a company with no rational alternatives unless it intends to shutdown and make everyone jobless. Which will likely just shift business to competitors that secretly cooperate with the State. Like with Lavabit. Note: Apple got to be lucky exception since FBI publicized the case and tried to fight in court of public opinion on top of an actual court. Terrible thing is we still don't know if they backdoored stuff for them with that being a show. Especially that HSM. It's illegal to know in the U.S..

by mtgx 10y ago

pascalmemories 10y ago

> Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about her new baby. OK, I normally think misogyny claims are over-blown and people are way too sensitive. But your comment positively reeks of misogyny. Rather than go for a down-vote, because you're able to edit your comment, I think you should reconsider the phrasing and delete the misogyny. If your comment doesn't stand without it, I believe deleting it would add to rather than subtract from, the discussion.

skue 10y ago
> > Mayer was probably too new and too scared to deal with this, especially when she had to think about her new baby. > OK, I normally think misogyny claims are over-blown and people are way too sensitive. But your comment positively reeks of misogyny. Rather than go for a down-vote, because you're able to edit your comment, I think you should reconsider the phrasing and delete the misogyny. Having newborn twins at home could certainly be a factor in any CEO's willingness to make an ideological stand in the face of jail time, regardless of the CEO's gender. Plus there's a wealth of feminist writing about the potential for gender disagreement when it comes to this very question, going back to Kohlberg, Gilligan, and an imaginary guy named Heinz.[1] FWIW, I do agree that any privileged group should be conscientious when discussing others who might sometimes feel like or be seen as outsiders, and that this applies to guys in tech. But your comment seems a bit over the top and risks shutting down discussion about an important topic... whether the government took advantage of the fact that Mayer had newborns at home when they pressured her to comply. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages...
oldmanjay 10y ago
Men can also have new babies. I'm chuckling rather heavily at the fact that you are the person who brought the sexism to the discussion in an attempt to white knight a bit.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"What's the law you're abiding with that says you need to implement such a backdoor? Name it. Even the FBI named the law or laws it thought would help it force Apple to put a backdoor in its phones." A court order to enable warrantless wiretapping per FISA provisions. That's what they were doing with others per the leaks. The Sentry Eagle leaks, highest classification they had, indicated the FBI "compelled" domestic firms to "SIGINT-enable" their stuff with FISA mentioned repeatedly. It didn't define the methods they used to compel companies. So, they have some way of leaning on them with the Patriot and FISA Acts as legal support. It shouldn't surprise you given it's happening in an active, police state with apathetic citizens who haven't forced Congress to roll back the legislation. Media has been fairly complicit, too, as they're not pushing the angles that would stir people into action. They watered down the previous debates. Until these legislations are killed, there's secret courts, secret consequences, and gag orders that all these companies are faced with. Unlikely anybody will help them if they violate the rules that serve the state. So, it's on the citizenry to modify those rules so there's accountability. They mostly don't care. So, compliance with the court orders is rational choice by a company with no rational alternatives unless it intends to shutdown and make everyone jobless. Which will likely just shift business to competitors that secretly cooperate with the State. Like with Lavabit. Note: Apple got to be lucky exception since FBI publicized the case and tried to fight in court of public opinion on top of an actual court. Terrible thing is we still don't know if they backdoored stuff for them with that being a show. Especially that HSM. It's illegal to know in the U.S..