3 ms·
There are three reasons in addition: 1. Insulating himself from future lawsuits. Judges look very favourably towards corporations that try to work with regulat
by 3pt14159 8y ago
There are three reasons in addition:
1. Insulating himself from future lawsuits. Judges look very favourably towards corporations that try to work with regulators before a crisis.
2. Legislating a fix reduces market demand for a technical fix. Imagine a world where a competitive platform to the internet / the web arises. In such a case if the public feels safe because of legislation then they're less likely to abandon the previous web.
3. Realistically speaking any action that would be devastating for Salesforce would be devastating for the US economy / intelligence apparatus; so either way there is going to be some measure of tracking for some amount of time. The real issue that Saleforce needs to handle is to ensure that it's ahead of its competitors and to do that it needs to see where the regulatory environment is going and plan its strategy around that.
- curun1r 8y ago> ...would be devastating for Salesforce would be devastating for the US ... intelligence apparatus GDPR exempts law enforcement and the court system so I'm not sure why we'd expect US legislation to be any different.
- 3pt14159 8y agoMuch of the data that our intelligence agencies collect is through collaboration with private industry. If Salesforce employs hundreds of people to clean up data then that (and other companies like them) going away would make a measurable difference to what the intelligence agencies are capable of doing.