3 ms·

You talk like google pay less in lobbying cash than an individual citizen. Google could refuse and take that s&^t to the supreme court while funding the oppone

by harry8 4y ago

You talk like google pay less in lobbying cash than an individual citizen. Google could refuse and take that s&^t to the supreme court while funding the opponent of every politician who took them on for it. That's what they do to ensure they're not getting broken up like a monopoly should be, after all. But yeah the latter is their profit, the former is merely the right thing to do. They're motivated to enhance their profit at the expense of the country, which is what out sized market power /is/ and to ignore something where they might improve the country because there's no cash in it for them. You kind of might want to revisit this part: "if you're an individual US citizen, you have more power to change it than Google does." Because it's clearly ridiculous on every level and comically so. Did the law really change since these guys signed up with google or did google "overlook it" to sign them, then pull the switch later without any change in law between the two dates?

shadowgovt 4y ago
A) SCOTUS would tell them to file the damn paperwork. Patriot Act has been challenged several times; it's well-crafted to be in compliance with the Constitution. B) Google already has a PAC but PACs aren't votes, though the cynics would claim otherwise. If people want to repeal any part of the Patriot Act, they need to make it an issue. The kind of issue that shows up on the news. C) It's hard to get purchase on changing this because know-your-customer is... Kind of a good requirement actually? Anonymity in business enables all manner of lawbreaking; sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc.
- harry8 4y ago
  A) you don't speak for the supreme court. But sure, that can be like, your opinion. B) The WHOLE purpose of a PAC is to galvanise public opinion in ways that suit the donor and obfuscate and de-amplify things that don't. This incredible government overreach is not an issue for google's vast spending in washington. Why? Because it's your fault and if you cared you could move the needle and get it repealed? Seriously, come on. You can't fight google and if you try you'd need a google sized budget to garner support! There's cynical and there's wilfully naive and sometimes, maybe deliberately disingenuous. > C) It's hard to get purchase on changing this because know-your-customer is... Kind of a good requirement actually? Anonymity in business enables all manner of lawbreaking; sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc. Yet they skipped the requirements when signing up customers, deliberately, by policy. Lower friction. Get them in first for sure! "It's so easy, just go!" The bait. Then came the switch, the outages and "It's not our fault it's the law" The law which IS unconstitutional and which hasn't changed between the bait and the switch. Google support clearly sucks very, very hard and it's not easy at all. I wonder if one day we'll look back at "cloud" and think, "what the actual fudge? How?"
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    A) No doubt; I'm just a pundit. All we can do is guess based on past rulings, like the one where they upheld prevention of material support for terrorists, expert advice, or assistance (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=print https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html...). Of course, they also overturned an instance where police tracking-bugged a suspect's vehicle without their consent. I assume "filing paperwork disclosing who you're doing business with" leans closer to preventing the former than doing the latter, but reasonable folks can disagree. B) You can't fight Google with that attitude, no. ;) ... but to be less flip: You're not fighting Google. Google isn't using its PAC to advocate for KYC law. So I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. If you think Google should change their behavior, the way to act on that opinion would be to... Organize Google users to put pressure on the company. So, power's back in our court again. > I wonder if wone day we'll look back at "cloud" and think, "what the actual fudge? How?" Oh, that I can help with. Maintaining one's own prem for anything that gets to be maintain-one's-own-prem-size is much worse. I've carried a pager for a cloud service, but I've never piled into the car at 2AM to drive half a state over to unlock my rented cage in a shared space with a physical link to a heavy-traffic backbone so I could power-cycle a machine. Nor have I put out a physical fire in a machine room, had a power supply blow up in my face, or driven up and down and up and down dirt roads to find the place where my fiber link is down because someone thought it'd be funny to take a shotgun to a junction box. A lot of folks who ask "why Cloud" have nearly zero experience with what came before. (TBF, for small businesses you can maybe handle your load with a few servers under a desk. Many people in this topic have explained how that goes though, and customers expect five-nines uptime these days.)
    - harry8 4y ago
      Dunno how this happened but you and I are having two completely different conversations. Best.

by harry8 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

A) SCOTUS would tell them to file the damn paperwork. Patriot Act has been challenged several times; it's well-crafted to be in compliance with the Constitution. B) Google already has a PAC but PACs aren't votes, though the cynics would claim otherwise. If people want to repeal any part of the Patriot Act, they need to make it an issue. The kind of issue that shows up on the news. C) It's hard to get purchase on changing this because know-your-customer is... Kind of a good requirement actually? Anonymity in business enables all manner of lawbreaking; sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc.

harry8 4y ago
A) you don't speak for the supreme court. But sure, that can be like, your opinion. B) The WHOLE purpose of a PAC is to galvanise public opinion in ways that suit the donor and obfuscate and de-amplify things that don't. This incredible government overreach is not an issue for google's vast spending in washington. Why? Because it's your fault and if you cared you could move the needle and get it repealed? Seriously, come on. You can't fight google and if you try you'd need a google sized budget to garner support! There's cynical and there's wilfully naive and sometimes, maybe deliberately disingenuous. > C) It's hard to get purchase on changing this because know-your-customer is... Kind of a good requirement actually? Anonymity in business enables all manner of lawbreaking; sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc. Yet they skipped the requirements when signing up customers, deliberately, by policy. Lower friction. Get them in first for sure! "It's so easy, just go!" The bait. Then came the switch, the outages and "It's not our fault it's the law" The law which IS unconstitutional and which hasn't changed between the bait and the switch. Google support clearly sucks very, very hard and it's not easy at all. I wonder if one day we'll look back at "cloud" and think, "what the actual fudge? How?"
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  A) No doubt; I'm just a pundit. All we can do is guess based on past rulings, like the one where they upheld prevention of material support for terrorists, expert advice, or assistance (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=print https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html...). Of course, they also overturned an instance where police tracking-bugged a suspect's vehicle without their consent. I assume "filing paperwork disclosing who you're doing business with" leans closer to preventing the former than doing the latter, but reasonable folks can disagree. B) You can't fight Google with that attitude, no. ;) ... but to be less flip: You're not fighting Google. Google isn't using its PAC to advocate for KYC law. So I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. If you think Google should change their behavior, the way to act on that opinion would be to... Organize Google users to put pressure on the company. So, power's back in our court again. > I wonder if wone day we'll look back at "cloud" and think, "what the actual fudge? How?" Oh, that I can help with. Maintaining one's own prem for anything that gets to be maintain-one's-own-prem-size is much worse. I've carried a pager for a cloud service, but I've never piled into the car at 2AM to drive half a state over to unlock my rented cage in a shared space with a physical link to a heavy-traffic backbone so I could power-cycle a machine. Nor have I put out a physical fire in a machine room, had a power supply blow up in my face, or driven up and down and up and down dirt roads to find the place where my fiber link is down because someone thought it'd be funny to take a shotgun to a junction box. A lot of folks who ask "why Cloud" have nearly zero experience with what came before. (TBF, for small businesses you can maybe handle your load with a few servers under a desk. Many people in this topic have explained how that goes though, and customers expect five-nines uptime these days.)
  - harry8 4y ago
    Dunno how this happened but you and I are having two completely different conversations. Best.