5 ms·

But Google's record is spotty. Just this month, it handed over a WikiLeaks volunteer's Gmail data to the U.S. government, which used an old and controversial la

But Google's record is spotty. Just this month, it handed over a WikiLeaks volunteer's Gmail data to the U.S. government, which used an old and controversial law to request it without a warrant from a judge. Google is pushing for updated laws ... This seems like an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Google actually fought so they don't have to give the data of that Wikileaks guy, but I think they had no choice in the end.
- jhancock 15y ago
  What do you mean "had no choice"? They ran out of appeals? The gov sent in storm troopers and held a gun to someone's head?
  - jxi 15y ago
    Is that really what's needed for you to be satisfied with Google's decision? You need there to be violence to prove that what they did was enough?
    - jhancock 15y ago
      No...I simply asked to what extent they dug in their heels. The first question I posed in this regard was did they exhaust their legal, non-violent appeals process. The second question was referring to a metaphoric gun; questioning if the gov used extremely unfair measures to produce the results they wanted. I was looking for someone that had more extensive knowledge on this event to provide details. I don't have them.
      - nkassis 15y ago
        Well if they were given the choice between giving the relevant data or getting their entire data center raided, I'd pick option one.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  They had the choice to say "No, fuck you. We're not giving it to you. In fact, one of our interns accidentally just the entire relevant harddrives." No, they just ran out of choices that didn't actually demand anything of themselves.
boscomutunga 15y ago
Yes, there is little they could do since its the government we are speaking about here.
rickmb 15y ago
Have we collectively forgotten the time when journalists went to jail rather than reveal their sources, and publishers didn't waiver in their support? However understandable Google's position may be, fighting the law is not an "absurdly high standard". Sometimes it's simply the right thing to do. This "obey the law, obey the government" attitude is a post-9/11 thing we really need to get over.
- jxi 15y ago
  Ok, sure. Google can do better in the "making the world a better place" area, but at what cost. It costs money and time to deal with things like this and quite frankly I'd rather they spent that on continuing to create great products.
- learc83 15y ago
  Google is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share holders. If a reporter chooses goes to jail that's up to him, it's his decision to make. It's not Google's money to throw away.
  - 16BitTons 15y ago
    >Google is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share holders. I'm a shareholder. It's not much, but it does imply a tiny bit of ownership. And so, as a shareholder, I want Google to be totally righteous even at the risk of going bankrupt.
    - cobrausn 15y ago
      That's easy to say when you only have a small amount of money invested in ownership. If you had a lot more riding on this, you might take the opposite position. Not saying your current one isn't correct, but still...
  - asto 15y ago
    Their responsibility is towards shareholders with voting rights. As far as I know, the voting rights are skewed in favour of Brin and Page. If you don't have a significant voting right, you are a mute spectator at best and if you don't like what they're doing, all you can do is GTFO.
spodek 15y ago
"an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough" The law, in case of disputes, doesn't work that you just obey one rule. Different people interpret them differently and often multiple rules apply. Also, laws and their interpretations change over time. Just because one branch of the government claims the law says you have to do X doesn't mean that's the only interpretation of the law or the only law that applies. That's why a different branch of the government interprets laws than enforces them, at least in the U.S. When the executive branch tries to circumvent the judicial, you can bet they don't think the judicial branch would agree on their interpretation.
jberryman 15y ago
Does anyone know if what they're talking about a National Security Letter? I would guess not, since those come with a gag order.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Google actually fought so they don't have to give the data of that Wikileaks guy, but I think they had no choice in the end.

jhancock 15y ago
What do you mean "had no choice"? They ran out of appeals? The gov sent in storm troopers and held a gun to someone's head?
- jxi 15y ago
  Is that really what's needed for you to be satisfied with Google's decision? You need there to be violence to prove that what they did was enough?
  - jhancock 15y ago
    No...I simply asked to what extent they dug in their heels. The first question I posed in this regard was did they exhaust their legal, non-violent appeals process. The second question was referring to a metaphoric gun; questioning if the gov used extremely unfair measures to produce the results they wanted. I was looking for someone that had more extensive knowledge on this event to provide details. I don't have them.
    - nkassis 15y ago
      Well if they were given the choice between giving the relevant data or getting their entire data center raided, I'd pick option one.
burgerbrain 15y ago
They had the choice to say "No, fuck you. We're not giving it to you. In fact, one of our interns accidentally just the entire relevant harddrives." No, they just ran out of choices that didn't actually demand anything of themselves.

boscomutunga 15y ago

Yes, there is little they could do since its the government we are speaking about here.

rickmb 15y ago

Have we collectively forgotten the time when journalists went to jail rather than reveal their sources, and publishers didn't waiver in their support? However understandable Google's position may be, fighting the law is not an "absurdly high standard". Sometimes it's simply the right thing to do. This "obey the law, obey the government" attitude is a post-9/11 thing we really need to get over.

jxi 15y ago
Ok, sure. Google can do better in the "making the world a better place" area, but at what cost. It costs money and time to deal with things like this and quite frankly I'd rather they spent that on continuing to create great products.
learc83 15y ago
Google is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share holders. If a reporter chooses goes to jail that's up to him, it's his decision to make. It's not Google's money to throw away.
- 16BitTons 15y ago
  >Google is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share holders. I'm a shareholder. It's not much, but it does imply a tiny bit of ownership. And so, as a shareholder, I want Google to be totally righteous even at the risk of going bankrupt.
  - cobrausn 15y ago
    That's easy to say when you only have a small amount of money invested in ownership. If you had a lot more riding on this, you might take the opposite position. Not saying your current one isn't correct, but still...
- asto 15y ago
  Their responsibility is towards shareholders with voting rights. As far as I know, the voting rights are skewed in favour of Brin and Page. If you don't have a significant voting right, you are a mute spectator at best and if you don't like what they're doing, all you can do is GTFO.

spodek 15y ago

"an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough" The law, in case of disputes, doesn't work that you just obey one rule. Different people interpret them differently and often multiple rules apply. Also, laws and their interpretations change over time. Just because one branch of the government claims the law says you have to do X doesn't mean that's the only interpretation of the law or the only law that applies. That's why a different branch of the government interprets laws than enforces them, at least in the U.S. When the executive branch tries to circumvent the judicial, you can bet they don't think the judicial branch would agree on their interpretation.

jberryman 15y ago

Does anyone know if what they're talking about a National Security Letter? I would guess not, since those come with a gag order.