3 ms·

> It's either a giant conspiracy by the FBI and multiple mega-corporations to blatantly lie, on public record, about a matter Like, say, the matter of secret s

by smsm42 8y ago

> It's either a giant conspiracy by the FBI and multiple mega-corporations to blatantly lie, on public record, about a matter Like, say, the matter of secret surveillance on the mass scale? I mean, the track record here is not exactly pristine. > Bloomberg didn't do their due diligence and were too eager That is a distinct possibility too. But I think we are now beyond the point where we could say "major tech companies would never lie together with the US security apparatus on a matter of public importance". They would, if they think it's worth it.

balabaster 8y ago
I think the matter of distinction of your second point isn't that they would or could, it's that we have evidence that in the past, they have already done this.
ethbro 8y ago
> Bloomberg didn't do their due diligence and were too eager Furthermore, the argument against this would be that (from the denials PRs) Bloomberg has been approaching the involved parties for "several years." Why would they decide to pull the trigger now simply from haste?
Illniyar 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you are referring to in PRISM the denials were quite vague. Both facebook and google said they never heard of a program called Prism but never denied being part of one. And facebook denied "direct access". Even when those responses came out there was confusion about what they meant in the statements. There doesn't seem to be any confusion here.
- astrange 8y ago
  It's easy to pretend to be confused about a denial. Most people here do it so they can have something to post about. The PRISM denials were not vague and were perfectly true. PRISM was a system for handling subpoenas, and nobody denies getting subpoenas. If you ask e.g. Facebook they also won't deny proactively reporting child abuse to the FBI, which is another real US legal requirement.
abalone 8y ago
> But I think we are now beyond the point where we could say "major tech companies would never lie together with the US security apparatus on a matter of public importance". They would, if they think it's worth it. This is just conspiracy theory thinking. You offer no evidence for this incredible assertion. Some companies have previously collaborated with the government, generally without explicitly lying, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that all companies would voluntarily lie in a coverup conspiracy -- which, by the way, opens them up to investor lawsuits and risks destroying their branding, for no good reason. We also do know that the government cannot legally compel companies to lie, only to remain silent.
- smsm42 8y ago
  It's not "theory", it's publicly known facts that companies participating in mass surveillance denied it, and US official lied under oath to Congress (and weren't punished for it) to conceal it. There's no "theory" here. > You offer no evidence for this incredible assertion. The evidence to the above is publicly available and has been discussed to death. If you somehow managed to miss all of it, start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... and go on the links from there, it will take you some time. > Some companies have previously collaborated with the government, generally without explicitly lying, Yes, saying "we do not conduct this particular kind of surveillance ordered by this particular person" while knowing they conduct a slightly different kind of surveillance, ordered by different set of persons - is not explicitly lying. Just like saying "we don't have surveillance technology installed by FBI" if it's installed by NSA instead. There are many ways of lying without "explicitly lying". > but we cannot jump to the conclusion that all companies would voluntarily lie in a coverup conspiracy We can not and we do not. We do not know whether any specific company would lie - we just know this option is now very much on the table. > which, by the way, opens them up to investor lawsuits and risks destroying their branding, for no good reason. Being on good terms with somebody as powerful as US federal government is a very, very good reason. And I don't see anybody's branding being destroyed so far by the revelation of mass surveillance. We know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemisphere_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemisphere_Project - has AT&T brand been destroyed? Not in the least. And the government granted them immunity from lawsuits related to this.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
> Like, say, the matter of secret surveillance on the mass scale? I mean, the track record here is not exactly pristine. There remains no evidence that any companies lied about secret surveillance on a mass scale.

by smsm42 8y ago

balabaster 8y ago

I think the matter of distinction of your second point isn't that they would or could, it's that we have evidence that in the past, they have already done this.

ethbro 8y ago

> Bloomberg didn't do their due diligence and were too eager Furthermore, the argument against this would be that (from the denials PRs) Bloomberg has been approaching the involved parties for "several years." Why would they decide to pull the trigger now simply from haste?

Illniyar 8y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you are referring to in PRISM the denials were quite vague. Both facebook and google said they never heard of a program called Prism but never denied being part of one. And facebook denied "direct access". Even when those responses came out there was confusion about what they meant in the statements. There doesn't seem to be any confusion here.

astrange 8y ago
It's easy to pretend to be confused about a denial. Most people here do it so they can have something to post about. The PRISM denials were not vague and were perfectly true. PRISM was a system for handling subpoenas, and nobody denies getting subpoenas. If you ask e.g. Facebook they also won't deny proactively reporting child abuse to the FBI, which is another real US legal requirement.

abalone 8y ago

> But I think we are now beyond the point where we could say "major tech companies would never lie together with the US security apparatus on a matter of public importance". They would, if they think it's worth it. This is just conspiracy theory thinking. You offer no evidence for this incredible assertion. Some companies have previously collaborated with the government, generally without explicitly lying, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that all companies would voluntarily lie in a coverup conspiracy -- which, by the way, opens them up to investor lawsuits and risks destroying their branding, for no good reason. We also do know that the government cannot legally compel companies to lie, only to remain silent.

smsm42 8y ago
It's not "theory", it's publicly known facts that companies participating in mass surveillance denied it, and US official lied under oath to Congress (and weren't punished for it) to conceal it. There's no "theory" here. > You offer no evidence for this incredible assertion. The evidence to the above is publicly available and has been discussed to death. If you somehow managed to miss all of it, start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... and go on the links from there, it will take you some time. > Some companies have previously collaborated with the government, generally without explicitly lying, Yes, saying "we do not conduct this particular kind of surveillance ordered by this particular person" while knowing they conduct a slightly different kind of surveillance, ordered by different set of persons - is not explicitly lying. Just like saying "we don't have surveillance technology installed by FBI" if it's installed by NSA instead. There are many ways of lying without "explicitly lying". > but we cannot jump to the conclusion that all companies would voluntarily lie in a coverup conspiracy We can not and we do not. We do not know whether any specific company would lie - we just know this option is now very much on the table. > which, by the way, opens them up to investor lawsuits and risks destroying their branding, for no good reason. Being on good terms with somebody as powerful as US federal government is a very, very good reason. And I don't see anybody's branding being destroyed so far by the revelation of mass surveillance. We know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemisphere_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemisphere_Project - has AT&T brand been destroyed? Not in the least. And the government granted them immunity from lawsuits related to this.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

> Like, say, the matter of secret surveillance on the mass scale? I mean, the track record here is not exactly pristine. There remains no evidence that any companies lied about secret surveillance on a mass scale.