> we can see that tech companies are often noncompliant To a degree, sure, but only because of the fluidity of the US justice system. Tech companies, like anyo

> we can see that tech companies are often noncompliant To a degree, sure, but only because of the fluidity of the US justice system. Tech companies, like anyone, always in the end bow to the whims of congress. Consider how much information Google has or could have on any given member of the government - it could begin blackmailing, but hasn't dared take that step. Consider the actual power over money the banks have - they are one of the primary mechanisms the US government uses to regulate the economy, set interest rates and etc. They twist the law to serve them but no bank has ever outright disavowed a law, despite it being as simple as making the numbers be what the bank wants them to be. Yes, laws aren't the only pressure mechanism affecting banks, google, etc, but my point is that true noncompliance is representative of a rejection of a given authority. It's more than just breaking a law. The US government remains a competent enough authority to acknowledge, but if congress came out and amended the constitution to remove all term limits, and the supreme court put out a statement that it will interpret these changes as written, and then the three branches went from there to establish an overt authoritarian regime, at that point you'd start seeing true non compliance. I use the extreme example to show the balance that has to be struck by authority to maintain the illusion of authority. The US government maintains authority so long as it's useful to those others with extraordinary power (banks, tech companies, the People in their entirety, the military-industrial complex, big oil, etc). It can't risk pushing against those interests too far in any direction.