9 ms·

Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? It's not clear to me what would happen ne

Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? It's not clear to me what would happen next but I can't imagine Pichai would be arrested. Maybe a datacenter would be raided (could FBI even guess where this data might be physically located?) but at least then some public action would have to happen and break the secrecy.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I would love for this to be viable. But I can't help but think there are all sorts of ways for our intelligence agencies to ruin a person's life for not complying. I'm not even suggesting some kind of spy-novel intrigue, you can just tell them to comply or they'll drag you and your company through the mud until they get what they want. Imagine taking a principled stand and then suddenly having your life examined under a microscope by the FBI or the IRS. It would be a totally unrelated audit, just how some people tend to be subject to random additional screening at airports.
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  Just remember Qwest and Joseph Nacchio. It's entirely plausible he was crooked, but he also claimed the NSA backed out of a deal with Qwest and then the insider trading charges showed up after he refused to comply with their (illegal) requests to spy on their customers.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > It's entirely plausible he was crooked, but he also claimed the NSA backed out of a deal with Qwest and then the insider trading charges showed up after he refused to comply with their (illegal) requests to spy on their customers Read the charge sheet [1]. Is it possible that the NSA walked over to the SEC and asked them to prioritise this? Sure, why not. Is it also pretty clear cut that he insider traded? Yes. [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-36.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-36.htm
    - toolz 5y ago
      It's difficult to win in an SEC governed market that is corrupt by design. You'd need a competitive advantage large enough to bridge the SECs designed corruption in the market.
      - tyre 5y ago
        What does this even mean? That it’s difficult to make your stock go up because the SEC has rigged the market? Read through Tesla’s history with the SEC, specifically Musk being immature and committing securities fraud on Twitter. They’ve fined him and the company, and there is no love lost between the two, but TSLA is still going up.
        unethical_ban 5y ago
        One could argue that's the problem: They got a slap on the wrist instead of crippling punishment for illegal behavior, and there are companies that may be farther in the electric vehicle game than they are today, because they didn't employ a grandiose, law-flouting CEO to prop up their stock.
        toolz 5y ago
        Spend even just a couple hours researching dark pools and naked shorts and it becomes blindingly obvious the SEC exists to do anything but protect consumers. The twitter outrage over elon's comments are nothing more than a woefully uninformed public hoping to remove the tip without addressing the iceburg underneath. If every one of your competition doesn't have to play by the rules, you'll find it hard to beat them playing honestly and you'll find that over time the only winners left are the cheaters.
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        I know all about dark pools and naked shorts and I have no idea what you're talking about. Be specific. Give details.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime” was Beria's infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin's death in 1953 ...
    - soperj 5y ago
      Ironic considering, soon after he was arrested, tried for treason and other offenses, sentenced to death, and executed on 23 December 1953.
      - ComputerGuru 5y ago
        I don’t think ironic is the right word. Just fitting - he knew the system and the system lived up to his promise.
        soperj 5y ago
        I'm using it in the greek tragedy sense, not the sarcasm sense.
- hwers 5y ago
  This is what I fear is going to happen once surveillance-type robots start appearing in the streets. The narrative is that we'd somehow destroy them on sight but the truth is that that would be criminally persecuted.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Both things will happen. In some locations they will be destroyed despite the potential consequences, in other locations the population will rationalize their presence as being a good thing. It'll vary by affluence, culture. Poor people will tolerate them a lot less than rich people (rich people will believe that they make the area safer and will accept the trade-off).
mindslight 5y ago
The government and Google are symbiotic entities. Why would this ever happen?
- xxpor 5y ago
  Not even close. This sort of rhetoric just numbs people to actual abuses when they happen. If you want to see actual symbiotic entities, go look at social media in China or American defense contractors.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Honestly this forced choice (either google is in bed with government or Raytheon et Al are) is just needless politicization. Why don't we just condemn both? I mean... Google is going down the same path as the defense contractors and instead of stopping it from evolving into something like them, you're essentially arguing to look the other way
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    What's the difference? Sam must have invested in Google before 2005. At least that was the time it became somewhat apparent
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Without backing up your assertion, we're just talking past one another. Google the entity relies upon USG's system of laws for what it can and cannot do. Without Google (et al), USG would have a much harder time gathering information on citizens. That's symbiosis. There is real downside to Google if it decided to go against USG's de facto interests, even if it technically has the de jure ability to do so. What is the upside? The only large company that has made an attempt to rebuke the general desires of USG is Apple, which has since backpedaled with its on device spyware. Could this relationship be reformed through the little bit of leverage that US citizens have over USG? Perhaps. If you've got another concrete proposal aimed at doing do, then bring it up. But unless we're discussing a specific proposal, it's prudent for individual citizens to model the two as cooperating attackers rather than getting distracted with hopeful dichotomies such as "government" vs "private company".
1123581321 5y ago
Pichai certainly could be arrested for refusing to comply with warrants and court orders.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  In principle, by the letter and spirit of the law (bad as it is in this case), sure. In practice, I very much doubt anyone would dare arrest someone with Sundar Pichai's money and social standing for anything less than murder or insider trading basically.
  - karmasimida 5y ago
    I don't think so.
onetimemanytime 5y ago
>> Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? Ummmm, no. Correct response is courts and then comply. Pichai would lose his job in a minute.
- UIUC_06 5y ago
  You are ignoring the fact that Tim Cook fought the government on the San Bernardino shooter, and still has his job. The Board is not going to fire Pichai over this, provided he appears to be fighting through the courts rather than practicing outright defiance.
  - onetimemanytime 5y ago
    you can fight until the case is still in the courts. Then, it is over. That's what I meant.
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    In a short search I didn't find any indication that this was one of the infamous "National Security Letters" that comes with a gag order.
tehjoker 5y ago
I know a guy that was working for a defense contractor in the 2000s that searched his military ranked boss's name on Google and told me he was told the next day not to do that anymore.
- drcoopster 5y ago
  I'll be the part of the story he didn't tell you is more interesting.
- dmoy 5y ago
  I mean yea, everything you do at work in a defense contractor is keylogged. They don't need to ask Google, they know what you're doing on their network.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    He said he did it from home though. I always wondered if he was making it up or not, but this was the Bush era (not that that much has changed).
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      VPN or company managed device? Seems like something a vaguely savvy user would keep in mind though.
      - tehjoker 5y ago
        I think it was a home device, I don't think this guy was super savvy though.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      I'm assuming he landed somewhere after the search that his bosses had logs for, like maybe a bio page on some .mil domain. Back in the 2000's, you still got a referrer header that included not just "google.com", but also the search query parameters. So if you followed https://www.google.com/search?q=my+asshole+boss+joe+schmoe https://www.google.com/search?q=my+asshole+boss+joe+schmoe to get to the .mil hosted bio page, they got to see that.
pyrale 5y ago
The recent documents made public have shown that google doesn't give a shit about moral integrity. What makes you think that they would put themselves at risk for some kind of non-monetary public good?
- bduerst 5y ago
  According to Forbes (who published the unsealed the docs), nothing is known about whether or not Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are even complying with the requests, or to what extent if they are.
AlbertCory 5y ago
If Sundar decided to fight this (I'm not saying he would), then Google would probably file for an injunction to quash the request. No arrests, no raids.
koheripbal 5y ago
The judge that issued the warrant would order Google into court and administer hefty fines for a few days. if they still refused the court could order arrest warrants for executives of the company until they comply. it never ever goes this far

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I would love for this to be viable. But I can't help but think there are all sorts of ways for our intelligence agencies to ruin a person's life for not complying. I'm not even suggesting some kind of spy-novel intrigue, you can just tell them to comply or they'll drag you and your company through the mud until they get what they want. Imagine taking a principled stand and then suddenly having your life examined under a microscope by the FBI or the IRS. It would be a totally unrelated audit, just how some people tend to be subject to random additional screening at airports.

Teknoman117 5y ago
Just remember Qwest and Joseph Nacchio. It's entirely plausible he was crooked, but he also claimed the NSA backed out of a deal with Qwest and then the insider trading charges showed up after he refused to comply with their (illegal) requests to spy on their customers.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > It's entirely plausible he was crooked, but he also claimed the NSA backed out of a deal with Qwest and then the insider trading charges showed up after he refused to comply with their (illegal) requests to spy on their customers Read the charge sheet [1]. Is it possible that the NSA walked over to the SEC and asked them to prioritise this? Sure, why not. Is it also pretty clear cut that he insider traded? Yes. [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-36.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-36.htm
  - toolz 5y ago
    It's difficult to win in an SEC governed market that is corrupt by design. You'd need a competitive advantage large enough to bridge the SECs designed corruption in the market.
    - tyre 5y ago
      What does this even mean? That it’s difficult to make your stock go up because the SEC has rigged the market? Read through Tesla’s history with the SEC, specifically Musk being immature and committing securities fraud on Twitter. They’ve fined him and the company, and there is no love lost between the two, but TSLA is still going up.
      - unethical_ban 5y ago
        One could argue that's the problem: They got a slap on the wrist instead of crippling punishment for illegal behavior, and there are companies that may be farther in the electric vehicle game than they are today, because they didn't employ a grandiose, law-flouting CEO to prop up their stock.
      - toolz 5y ago
        Spend even just a couple hours researching dark pools and naked shorts and it becomes blindingly obvious the SEC exists to do anything but protect consumers. The twitter outrage over elon's comments are nothing more than a woefully uninformed public hoping to remove the tip without addressing the iceburg underneath. If every one of your competition doesn't have to play by the rules, you'll find it hard to beat them playing honestly and you'll find that over time the only winners left are the cheaters.
        NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        I know all about dark pools and naked shorts and I have no idea what you're talking about. Be specific. Give details.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime” was Beria's infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin's death in 1953 ...
  - soperj 5y ago
    Ironic considering, soon after he was arrested, tried for treason and other offenses, sentenced to death, and executed on 23 December 1953.
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      I don’t think ironic is the right word. Just fitting - he knew the system and the system lived up to his promise.
      - soperj 5y ago
        I'm using it in the greek tragedy sense, not the sarcasm sense.
hwers 5y ago
This is what I fear is going to happen once surveillance-type robots start appearing in the streets. The narrative is that we'd somehow destroy them on sight but the truth is that that would be criminally persecuted.
- adventured 5y ago
  Both things will happen. In some locations they will be destroyed despite the potential consequences, in other locations the population will rationalize their presence as being a good thing. It'll vary by affluence, culture. Poor people will tolerate them a lot less than rich people (rich people will believe that they make the area safer and will accept the trade-off).

mindslight 5y ago

The government and Google are symbiotic entities. Why would this ever happen?

xxpor 5y ago
Not even close. This sort of rhetoric just numbs people to actual abuses when they happen. If you want to see actual symbiotic entities, go look at social media in China or American defense contractors.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Honestly this forced choice (either google is in bed with government or Raytheon et Al are) is just needless politicization. Why don't we just condemn both? I mean... Google is going down the same path as the defense contractors and instead of stopping it from evolving into something like them, you're essentially arguing to look the other way
- beebeepka 5y ago
  What's the difference? Sam must have invested in Google before 2005. At least that was the time it became somewhat apparent
- mindslight 5y ago
  Without backing up your assertion, we're just talking past one another. Google the entity relies upon USG's system of laws for what it can and cannot do. Without Google (et al), USG would have a much harder time gathering information on citizens. That's symbiosis. There is real downside to Google if it decided to go against USG's de facto interests, even if it technically has the de jure ability to do so. What is the upside? The only large company that has made an attempt to rebuke the general desires of USG is Apple, which has since backpedaled with its on device spyware. Could this relationship be reformed through the little bit of leverage that US citizens have over USG? Perhaps. If you've got another concrete proposal aimed at doing do, then bring it up. But unless we're discussing a specific proposal, it's prudent for individual citizens to model the two as cooperating attackers rather than getting distracted with hopeful dichotomies such as "government" vs "private company".

1123581321 5y ago

Pichai certainly could be arrested for refusing to comply with warrants and court orders.

tsimionescu 5y ago
In principle, by the letter and spirit of the law (bad as it is in this case), sure. In practice, I very much doubt anyone would dare arrest someone with Sundar Pichai's money and social standing for anything less than murder or insider trading basically.
- karmasimida 5y ago
  I don't think so.

onetimemanytime 5y ago

>> Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? Ummmm, no. Correct response is courts and then comply. Pichai would lose his job in a minute.

UIUC_06 5y ago
You are ignoring the fact that Tim Cook fought the government on the San Bernardino shooter, and still has his job. The Board is not going to fire Pichai over this, provided he appears to be fighting through the courts rather than practicing outright defiance.
- onetimemanytime 5y ago
  you can fight until the case is still in the courts. Then, it is over. That's what I meant.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  In a short search I didn't find any indication that this was one of the infamous "National Security Letters" that comes with a gag order.

tehjoker 5y ago

I know a guy that was working for a defense contractor in the 2000s that searched his military ranked boss's name on Google and told me he was told the next day not to do that anymore.

drcoopster 5y ago
I'll be the part of the story he didn't tell you is more interesting.
dmoy 5y ago
I mean yea, everything you do at work in a defense contractor is keylogged. They don't need to ask Google, they know what you're doing on their network.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  He said he did it from home though. I always wondered if he was making it up or not, but this was the Bush era (not that that much has changed).
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    VPN or company managed device? Seems like something a vaguely savvy user would keep in mind though.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      I think it was a home device, I don't think this guy was super savvy though.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    I'm assuming he landed somewhere after the search that his bosses had logs for, like maybe a bio page on some .mil domain. Back in the 2000's, you still got a referrer header that included not just "google.com", but also the search query parameters. So if you followed https://www.google.com/search?q=my+asshole+boss+joe+schmoe https://www.google.com/search?q=my+asshole+boss+joe+schmoe to get to the .mil hosted bio page, they got to see that.

pyrale 5y ago

The recent documents made public have shown that google doesn't give a shit about moral integrity. What makes you think that they would put themselves at risk for some kind of non-monetary public good?

bduerst 5y ago
According to Forbes (who published the unsealed the docs), nothing is known about whether or not Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are even complying with the requests, or to what extent if they are.

AlbertCory 5y ago

If Sundar decided to fight this (I'm not saying he would), then Google would probably file for an injunction to quash the request. No arrests, no raids.

koheripbal 5y ago

The judge that issued the warrant would order Google into court and administer hefty fines for a few days. if they still refused the court could order arrest warrants for executives of the company until they comply. it never ever goes this far