4 ms·

No, I don't think that's practical. Standards like transparency, rule of law and a clear separation between corporations and the government should be uphold co

by fwn 6y ago

No, I don't think that's practical. Standards like transparency, rule of law and a clear separation between corporations and the government should be uphold completely independent from the fact that this isn't done exactly as rigorous everywhere on the planet. It's a relatively new (and IMO flawed) idea that western democracies should corrupt themselves just because non-democracies exist. I think it's rooted in insecurity over the long term superiority of democratic institutions. This might lead to western democracy being perceived as something you do not because it's strengthening the country but because you want people to enjoy it as a luxury as long as the country can afford it. I think that's wrong and will surely be out of fashion as soon as more prominent autocratic regimes fail to deliver as consistently as they currently do.

bigbillheck 6y ago
> relatively new ... idea The ghost of Henry Stimson would disagree.
jariel 6y ago
It's not 'corrupt' to spy on other nations and it's not 'corrupt' to facilitate it. It's not rooted in 'insecurity of the belief in a style of government' it's rooted in basic security measures. Western nations spy on other nations as a matter of national security policy much like they invest in early-warning satellites. The 'corruption' stems from the type of authority that drives the activity, their motivations, and what they do with the power.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  When spying on and manipulating other countries takes priority over protecting everyone including yourselves, that is indeed corrupt or twisted or whatever word you want to use. Fixing a software bug or vulnerability is unequivocally good, and the sooner the better, regardless of who thinks they need that bug to make their global manipulations a little easier. The realpolitik BS is just too easy of an excuse for any monstrosity, and the blowback is always worse than the immediate problem.
  - jariel 6y ago
    It's not 'unequivocal' though - we don't have enough information to say that. You have to know what the vulnerability is, how it's exploited and what the consequences are. While I don't doubt that in reality, erring on the side of closing it is probably the right thing to do, the fact is we don't know. If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. If they were using it to make a drug bust, when then who cares, shut it down.
    - chopin 6y ago
      > If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. The rogue entities on this planet already have nuclear weapons (and no, I am not talking of North Korea). A widely overlooked fact is that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty obliges the nations with nuclear weapons to get rid of them[0]. This part of the treaty has never been uphold. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
      - jariel 6y ago
        This is a misrepresentation. There are no 'rogue entities' with nukes outside of N. Korea unless you consider Pakistan to be 'rogue', or, their benefactors, Saudi Arabia who undoubtedly have access to the tech the moment they need it to be ... but they are not 'rogue', or rather, the action would be widely condemned but a different story altogether. Iran, would be a 'rogue nation' trying to get nukes, which they have signalled they are trying to do. A wayward state or quasi-independent province in the Caucuses, the M/E or Africa would be that as well. Or of course some legit terrorist group. And it would have nothing really to do with non-proliferation obviously. If the US was trying to thwart Iran from getting nuclear weapons through some back door, then it frankly would be in Google's best interests to help. The notion that large corporate entities can exist in a geopolitical context and yet somehow ignore it at the same time is nonsensical. Once you are 'Google Scale' your piece is on the table and you have to play. Edit: to put another way - Google's very existence is protected and enabled by the US Economic and Geopolitical situation in a tangible way. It's not abstract at that level, like it would be for a small company. Remember how we thought of US Army in Iraq as 'Exxon's Army'? Well it's 'Google's Army' now ...

by fwn 6y ago

bigbillheck 6y ago

> relatively new ... idea The ghost of Henry Stimson would disagree.

jariel 6y ago

It's not 'corrupt' to spy on other nations and it's not 'corrupt' to facilitate it. It's not rooted in 'insecurity of the belief in a style of government' it's rooted in basic security measures. Western nations spy on other nations as a matter of national security policy much like they invest in early-warning satellites. The 'corruption' stems from the type of authority that drives the activity, their motivations, and what they do with the power.

nitrogen 6y ago
When spying on and manipulating other countries takes priority over protecting everyone including yourselves, that is indeed corrupt or twisted or whatever word you want to use. Fixing a software bug or vulnerability is unequivocally good, and the sooner the better, regardless of who thinks they need that bug to make their global manipulations a little easier. The realpolitik BS is just too easy of an excuse for any monstrosity, and the blowback is always worse than the immediate problem.
- jariel 6y ago
  It's not 'unequivocal' though - we don't have enough information to say that. You have to know what the vulnerability is, how it's exploited and what the consequences are. While I don't doubt that in reality, erring on the side of closing it is probably the right thing to do, the fact is we don't know. If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. If they were using it to make a drug bust, when then who cares, shut it down.
  - chopin 6y ago
    > If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. The rogue entities on this planet already have nuclear weapons (and no, I am not talking of North Korea). A widely overlooked fact is that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty obliges the nations with nuclear weapons to get rid of them[0]. This part of the treaty has never been uphold. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
    - jariel 6y ago
      This is a misrepresentation. There are no 'rogue entities' with nukes outside of N. Korea unless you consider Pakistan to be 'rogue', or, their benefactors, Saudi Arabia who undoubtedly have access to the tech the moment they need it to be ... but they are not 'rogue', or rather, the action would be widely condemned but a different story altogether. Iran, would be a 'rogue nation' trying to get nukes, which they have signalled they are trying to do. A wayward state or quasi-independent province in the Caucuses, the M/E or Africa would be that as well. Or of course some legit terrorist group. And it would have nothing really to do with non-proliferation obviously. If the US was trying to thwart Iran from getting nuclear weapons through some back door, then it frankly would be in Google's best interests to help. The notion that large corporate entities can exist in a geopolitical context and yet somehow ignore it at the same time is nonsensical. Once you are 'Google Scale' your piece is on the table and you have to play. Edit: to put another way - Google's very existence is protected and enabled by the US Economic and Geopolitical situation in a tangible way. It's not abstract at that level, like it would be for a small company. Remember how we thought of US Army in Iraq as 'Exxon's Army'? Well it's 'Google's Army' now ...