6 ms·

I think that a better look at this subject is a recent piece in The Atlantic titled, "Are Facebook, Twitter, and Google American Companies?" https://www.theatl

I think that a better look at this subject is a recent piece in The Atlantic titled, "Are Facebook, Twitter, and Google American Companies?" https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/11/are-facebook-twitter-and-google-american-companies/544670/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/11/are-f... tl;dr, this back-and-forth is unsettling to a Federalist: >In response to a tough line of questions from Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Twitter’s acting general counsel, Sean Edgett, gave two conflicting answers within a couple of minutes. Cotton pressed Edgett on Twitter’s decision to cut off the CIA’s access to alerts derived from the Twitter-data fire hose, which is provided through a company it partially owns, Dataminr, while the companies reportedly still allowed the Russian media outlet RT to continue using the service for some time. >“Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian intelligence services?,” Cotton asked. >“We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government,” Edgett responded. >“So you will apply the same policy to our intelligence community that you’d apply to an adversary’s intelligence services?,” Cotton asked again. >“As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently,” Edgett replied. “We’re trying to be unbiased around the world.” >Cotton then turned to WikiLeaks, which the Intelligence Committee has designated as a nonstate hostile intelligence agency, asking why it had been operating “uninhibited” on Twitter. >“Is it bias to side with America over our adversaries?,” Cotton demanded. >“We’re trying to be unbiased around the world,” Edgett said. “We’re obviously an American company and care deeply about the issues we’re talking about today, but as it relates to WikiLeaks or other accounts like it, we make sure they are in compliance with our policies just like every other account.” I guess it is kind of cyberpunk-y. All we need now is for US Marshals to lay siege to some SF headquarters, facing contracted PMCs denying the validity of their warrants.

sanbor 9y ago
This is the second time that I read that WikiLeaks is classified as "hostile intelligence agency". Isn't the purpose of intelligence to gather information to gain advantage over adversaries? It sounds to me like a redundant term like "hostile military". And BTW WikiLeaks leaks are public so all other intelligence agencies and citizens can learn while state agencies try to keep things obscure as much as possible. Who's hostile?
- emacsgifs 9y ago
  The "hostile" framing device is a fairly naked attempt to build an ongoing narrative. I doubt it needs pointing out that the reason WikiLeaks exists is because many (most, all?) organs of "public " service are anything but.
- skybrian 9y ago
  It doesn't seem that hard to understand? In the context of a U.S. Congressional hearing, "hostile" probably means "hostile to the U.S."
  - sanbor 9y ago
    Good point! But depending on your interests/POW you could consider NSA as "hostile to the U.S." given they're spying on their own citizens.
- rtpg 9y ago
  If an American spy plane showed up over the Soviet Union, the plane would get shot at. If an American spy plane showed up over France, they wouldn't get shot at. Of course there's an understanding that intelligence agencies are all ultimately looking at everything, but there's a degree of cooperation. Even in the current state of affairs Russian and American intel agencies work together on anti-terrorism stuff. However, if the other group is clearly actively against you, then it's harder to work with them. It's safe to say at this point, given the evidence out ther, that WikiLeaks does work with an objective of embarassing American interests.
  - observation 9y ago
    > WikiLeaks does work with an objective of embarassing American interests. I think it's a contrarian media organization. I recall when the conservatives were all "kill this guy" during the Bush administration, now they they think he's the rescuer of Western Civilization. If you have any belief in 'checks and balances' as an anti-corruption mechanism then this is a positive. Who could regulate the 4th Estate, the academies? Not the government, they would be accused of corruption or despotism. Enter WL. Think about it: who is 'the establishment'. It can't be the President/White House can it, not when the majority of pundits, journalists and intellectuals were against him.
pmoriarty 9y ago
"I guess it is kind of cyberpunk-y. All we need now is for US Marshals to lay siege to some SF headquarters, facing contracted PMCs denying the validity of their warrants." More surreal things have happened... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._U...
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  >No compensatory damages were awarded. The judge said that Steve Jackson had little involvement in SJG at the time of the raid, and the company was close to Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that Jackson's renewed involvement in the wake of the raid had turned the company's fortunes around. Ah, the 'pockets full of fish' defense. "While my client did shove the claimant into a lake, they came out with their pockets full of fish to a net benefit. Therefore, my client is innocent."
- rrhd 9y ago
  That would put them on par with the right wing crazies who pop up from time to time. Those guys end up dead, imprisoned, on watch lists, etc...
dcow 9y ago
But Kumail's point isn't about whether these companies are patriotic, he's saying they lack any ethical framework of operation and presumes it's because people aren't challenging each other with ethical questions preferring to condone any behavior in favor of flexing engineering muscles and proving that, "yes, they can". I don't think it's unrelated, and perhaps your point is that it's doubly clear no one has thought about ethics when you examine Sean's contradictory responses. But I think the lack of patriotism is more of an example. Anyway, at the end of the day we're all people and we are the ones that depend on these companies and services. If you don't believe a company is behaving ethically, stop using their services. Make a damn sacrifice and live your virtue. Sure maybe we could argue that to some extent and in certain cases some companies have crossed the line and are harmfully exploiting customers to the extent that there should be legal ramifications, but the government does not exist to provide you an ethically sterile society. It exist to maintain and protect basic human rights--at least in the US as far as the formal documentation is concerned. As far as I can gather based on armchair political philosophy over drinks.. most people don't actually care about privacy and rank convenience or safety (at the expense of said privacy) higher in their priorities. I find that unfortunate but at the same time I still haven't worked up the courage to totally disband my Facebook account and switch completely over to my proton mail accounts. So it's complicated. If we could all agree that privacy is a fundamental human right which you would think would be supported by the constitution in the US then, we should actually act/rally to legislate such as other countries have done. Yet at the same time because these companies operate globally, they serve a diverse spectrum of users who may or may not share the same political and social values as we do in the US. This extends to the very employees who are "failing to ask the ethical questions" that Kumail can so obviously see are overlooked. This is globalization. TL;DR: they do this because they can, and they can because you let them.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  >TL;DR: they do this because they can, and they can because you let them. You may be passionate and well informed enough to have the strength of conviction to take appropriate action, but most people are not. Nothing will change unless you can affect the behavior of others. You will be fought every step of the way: for the company, this is a fight for survival. >they can because you let them. What does this statement reveal about your internal dialogue? You can't expect people who don't understand or who aren't involved to take action. You are delegating your responsibility. Perhaps it is good for your ego, but I can tell you how it turns out. A more appropriate statement would be, "because I let them."
mljoe 9y ago
>I guess it is kind of cyberpunk-y. All we need now is for US Marshals to lay siege to some SF headquarters, facing contracted PMCs denying the validity of their warrants. I think the turning point was the SOPA/PIPA thing. After that event, it felt like the tech industry seemed to collectively figure out that just through sheer technical dominance, they actually wield tons of practical political power. Possibly more then the savviest Washington insiders.
- rrhd 9y ago
  Or when google was facing anti-trust issues and they solved them with a bit of lobbying and some promises. I'm so glad to see the tide turning. People finally waking up to the things these companies do.
grad_ml 9y ago
I think this was all trash talk, nothing but an attempt to intimidate. If companies are following letters of the law then it doesn't matter who thinks/interprets what. and they better know they would be challenged in court of law.
notl4wy3r 9y ago
I hate wikileaks, but I honestly don't see the contradiction in Twitter's behavior on this point. Perhaps they were naive on whether RT was actually an aperture of Russian intelligence services. OK. Their KYC game could use some upping. OTOH, would anyone be surprised if the CIA were paying some little hedge fund somewhere to let them piggyback on access to Twitter's feed? As far as Wikileaks' uninhibited operation goes, as far as I can tell, the CIA has not had its account banned from Twitter, just its firehose access. Does Wikileaks have access to that? What would they do with it if they did? I mean it just seems like the line of questioning is, "Hey is it fair that you let them do X and won't let us do Y?" Maybe I can't see it because my silicon valley ass has no ethics.
- itronitron 9y ago
  the core issue is the activity focused on influencing a US election, which foreign nationals and foreign corporations are prohibited from doing [1] if Twitter cut off CIA from firehose access and then tried to sell Twitter advertising and analytic services to RT for a US election then that seems to be some poorly constructed PR staging by Twitter 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/07/did-facebook-ads-traced-to-a-russian-company-violate-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.c23313e06c61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09...
peoplewindow 9y ago
That's a pretty ridiculous conversation. No wonder the Twitter guy was confused. Neither Wikileaks nor RT are intelligence agencies. The Intelligence Committee pretending they are doesn't change that.

sanbor 9y ago

This is the second time that I read that WikiLeaks is classified as "hostile intelligence agency". Isn't the purpose of intelligence to gather information to gain advantage over adversaries? It sounds to me like a redundant term like "hostile military". And BTW WikiLeaks leaks are public so all other intelligence agencies and citizens can learn while state agencies try to keep things obscure as much as possible. Who's hostile?

emacsgifs 9y ago
The "hostile" framing device is a fairly naked attempt to build an ongoing narrative. I doubt it needs pointing out that the reason WikiLeaks exists is because many (most, all?) organs of "public " service are anything but.
skybrian 9y ago
It doesn't seem that hard to understand? In the context of a U.S. Congressional hearing, "hostile" probably means "hostile to the U.S."
- sanbor 9y ago
  Good point! But depending on your interests/POW you could consider NSA as "hostile to the U.S." given they're spying on their own citizens.
rtpg 9y ago
If an American spy plane showed up over the Soviet Union, the plane would get shot at. If an American spy plane showed up over France, they wouldn't get shot at. Of course there's an understanding that intelligence agencies are all ultimately looking at everything, but there's a degree of cooperation. Even in the current state of affairs Russian and American intel agencies work together on anti-terrorism stuff. However, if the other group is clearly actively against you, then it's harder to work with them. It's safe to say at this point, given the evidence out ther, that WikiLeaks does work with an objective of embarassing American interests.
- observation 9y ago
  > WikiLeaks does work with an objective of embarassing American interests. I think it's a contrarian media organization. I recall when the conservatives were all "kill this guy" during the Bush administration, now they they think he's the rescuer of Western Civilization. If you have any belief in 'checks and balances' as an anti-corruption mechanism then this is a positive. Who could regulate the 4th Estate, the academies? Not the government, they would be accused of corruption or despotism. Enter WL. Think about it: who is 'the establishment'. It can't be the President/White House can it, not when the majority of pundits, journalists and intellectuals were against him.

pmoriarty 9y ago

"I guess it is kind of cyberpunk-y. All we need now is for US Marshals to lay siege to some SF headquarters, facing contracted PMCs denying the validity of their warrants." More surreal things have happened... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._U...

leggomylibro 9y ago
>No compensatory damages were awarded. The judge said that Steve Jackson had little involvement in SJG at the time of the raid, and the company was close to Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that Jackson's renewed involvement in the wake of the raid had turned the company's fortunes around. Ah, the 'pockets full of fish' defense. "While my client did shove the claimant into a lake, they came out with their pockets full of fish to a net benefit. Therefore, my client is innocent."
rrhd 9y ago
That would put them on par with the right wing crazies who pop up from time to time. Those guys end up dead, imprisoned, on watch lists, etc...

dcow 9y ago

But Kumail's point isn't about whether these companies are patriotic, he's saying they lack any ethical framework of operation and presumes it's because people aren't challenging each other with ethical questions preferring to condone any behavior in favor of flexing engineering muscles and proving that, "yes, they can". I don't think it's unrelated, and perhaps your point is that it's doubly clear no one has thought about ethics when you examine Sean's contradictory responses. But I think the lack of patriotism is more of an example. Anyway, at the end of the day we're all people and we are the ones that depend on these companies and services. If you don't believe a company is behaving ethically, stop using their services. Make a damn sacrifice and live your virtue. Sure maybe we could argue that to some extent and in certain cases some companies have crossed the line and are harmfully exploiting customers to the extent that there should be legal ramifications, but the government does not exist to provide you an ethically sterile society. It exist to maintain and protect basic human rights--at least in the US as far as the formal documentation is concerned. As far as I can gather based on armchair political philosophy over drinks.. most people don't actually care about privacy and rank convenience or safety (at the expense of said privacy) higher in their priorities. I find that unfortunate but at the same time I still haven't worked up the courage to totally disband my Facebook account and switch completely over to my proton mail accounts. So it's complicated. If we could all agree that privacy is a fundamental human right which you would think would be supported by the constitution in the US then, we should actually act/rally to legislate such as other countries have done. Yet at the same time because these companies operate globally, they serve a diverse spectrum of users who may or may not share the same political and social values as we do in the US. This extends to the very employees who are "failing to ask the ethical questions" that Kumail can so obviously see are overlooked. This is globalization. TL;DR: they do this because they can, and they can because you let them.

abandonliberty 9y ago
>TL;DR: they do this because they can, and they can because you let them. You may be passionate and well informed enough to have the strength of conviction to take appropriate action, but most people are not. Nothing will change unless you can affect the behavior of others. You will be fought every step of the way: for the company, this is a fight for survival. >they can because you let them. What does this statement reveal about your internal dialogue? You can't expect people who don't understand or who aren't involved to take action. You are delegating your responsibility. Perhaps it is good for your ego, but I can tell you how it turns out. A more appropriate statement would be, "because I let them."

mljoe 9y ago

>I guess it is kind of cyberpunk-y. All we need now is for US Marshals to lay siege to some SF headquarters, facing contracted PMCs denying the validity of their warrants. I think the turning point was the SOPA/PIPA thing. After that event, it felt like the tech industry seemed to collectively figure out that just through sheer technical dominance, they actually wield tons of practical political power. Possibly more then the savviest Washington insiders.

rrhd 9y ago
Or when google was facing anti-trust issues and they solved them with a bit of lobbying and some promises. I'm so glad to see the tide turning. People finally waking up to the things these companies do.

grad_ml 9y ago

I think this was all trash talk, nothing but an attempt to intimidate. If companies are following letters of the law then it doesn't matter who thinks/interprets what. and they better know they would be challenged in court of law.

notl4wy3r 9y ago

I hate wikileaks, but I honestly don't see the contradiction in Twitter's behavior on this point. Perhaps they were naive on whether RT was actually an aperture of Russian intelligence services. OK. Their KYC game could use some upping. OTOH, would anyone be surprised if the CIA were paying some little hedge fund somewhere to let them piggyback on access to Twitter's feed? As far as Wikileaks' uninhibited operation goes, as far as I can tell, the CIA has not had its account banned from Twitter, just its firehose access. Does Wikileaks have access to that? What would they do with it if they did? I mean it just seems like the line of questioning is, "Hey is it fair that you let them do X and won't let us do Y?" Maybe I can't see it because my silicon valley ass has no ethics.

itronitron 9y ago
the core issue is the activity focused on influencing a US election, which foreign nationals and foreign corporations are prohibited from doing [1] if Twitter cut off CIA from firehose access and then tried to sell Twitter advertising and analytic services to RT for a US election then that seems to be some poorly constructed PR staging by Twitter 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/07/did-facebook-ads-traced-to-a-russian-company-violate-u-s-election-law/?utm_term=.c23313e06c61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09...

peoplewindow 9y ago

That's a pretty ridiculous conversation. No wonder the Twitter guy was confused. Neither Wikileaks nor RT are intelligence agencies. The Intelligence Committee pretending they are doesn't change that.