5 ms·
The headline is a little disingenuous (technically correct, yes...) - especially if thats all anyone ever reads. Google didn't hand this over on a whim, rather:
by donohoe 15y ago
The headline is a little disingenuous (technically correct, yes...) - especially if thats all anyone ever reads. Google didn't hand this over on a whim, rather:
The contacts list and IP address data of Jacob
Appelbaum, a WikiLeaks volunteer and developer
for Tor was given to the U.S. government after
they requested it using a secret court order
enabled by a controversial 1986 law called the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, according
to the Wall Street Journal. The law allows the
government to demand information from ISPs not
only without a warrant, but without ever
notifying the user.
The problem/fault/remedy lies with the US gov, not so much the compelled company in this case.
- guelo 15y agoYou wanted them to put that in the headline?
- artursapek 15y agoI doubt donohoe wanted to put that in the headline, I think he is suggesting the tone of the headline doesn't accurately portray what happened.
- waqf 15y agoIt would have been easy to write a less disingenuous headline. For example, "U.S. Compelled Google To Hand Over Wikileaks Volunteer's Gmail Data."
- nostrademons 15y agoThat's what the headline reads now - what was it before?
- abraham 15y agoTitle on the article: > Google Hands Wikileaks Volunteer's Gmail Data to U.S. Government Implies that Google did so out of free will rather then being legally compelled to.
- angrycoder 15y agoSo you quoted part of the article to give more details to the headline. That is basically how the whole article/headline thing works.
- carbocation 15y agoI recall that the headline was worded quite a bit differently when the GP wrote their post. The headline has since been updated.
- zohebv 15y ago> Electronic Communications Privacy Act Orwellian naming conventions are all the rage these days :-) Jerry Yang faced a lot of heat for doing pretty much the same thing in China. Google seems to reluctant to criticize the US government now, unlike, for e.g., the Chinese government.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- PakG1 15y agoEXACTLY the same thing. It's a really interesting point. When China does it, they're horrible. When the US does it, what is it? Is there a difference or not? The motivations are quite similar, and one probably can only look at whether the motivations of each country can be justified from a moral standpoint.
- cookiecaper 15y agoPerhaps the discontent comes because China is seen as something of an expeditionary market for American search providers. While you can give China the finger and get out, it's not tenable to do that in the US, so one is compelled to play by American rules. I don't necessarily believe that China's status as an expeditionary market makes it worthwhile to stop offering services in that country, just playing devil's advocate I guess.
- 0x12 15y agoCollaboration with a bad government is always optional, you can cease to do business. That's definitely tenable. It takes a lot of balls to do so. Imagine google coming right out and saying: 'Our do no evil motto is our guiding light and we have decided that being forced by the government to act in this manner to prevent our technology from being used to spy on American citizens in ways that we can not in good conscience allow is against our principles. Therefore we will cease operating today.'. I'm trying to imagine the effect of such a move, it strikes me that the ensuing fall-out would probably see the government as the losing party and google re-instated in very short order. Sometimes you have to make a stand, if the same thing was a good enough reason for google to cease to do business in China then maybe it should be good enough to cease doing business in the US.