9 ms·

Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance

506 points by pseudolus 8mo ago

epistasis 8mo ago
Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment. That has all changed today, except for Anthropic. You think Apple is going to stand up to an unlawful DoJ demand these days? Hell no. Tim Cook has lit Apple's reputation on fire. I've been a super dedicated Apple user for 25 years, but I'm heading for the exits now. All that trust has been burned. Stay strong Anthoproc, you are seemingly the only really large SV company with any principles and backbone. I won't forget what happens here, either way it goes.
- myvoiceismypass 8mo ago
  Hate to break the news but they might not be good guys either - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47145963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47145963 (Dropping safety pledge)
  - ipaddr 8mo ago
    They over did the safety aspect in my opinion.
  - reasonableklout 8mo ago
    Do you think it's possible the two are related?
    - yunnpp 8mo ago
      It's obvious that they are. The best thing the company could do if they want to stick to principles is not be based in the US.
      - givemeethekeys 8mo ago
        And, where should they be based out of?
        justinclift 8mo ago
        Switzerland used to the well known place for this. Not so sure any more though.
- pamcake 8mo ago
  I'd hold off making that call on Anthropic here until at least after Friday. I'm not sure if persisting that "constructive dialogue is taking place in good faith" and saying nothing else in public signifies backbone considering preceding and consecutive public statements by government officials... It certainly doesn't instil confidence in honesty or transparency.
  - bpodgursky 8mo ago
    I mean they got threatened with the Defense Production Act. Firmly standing their ground without an inch of give may backfire spectacularly too, if the DoD injects itself into model training. I think they pretty clearly demonstrated good faith and where it ends up is a tactical choice I'm not in a great position to judge.
    - tehjoker 8mo ago
      If DoD seizes the IP, the issue is they will need the cooperation of their scientists at least in the short term, if they want it to remain a fronter model. The labor angle isn't entirely guaranteed though the white collar worker has very little spine in this country.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > DoD seizes the IP Almost certainly not on the table. If Hegseth did this he’d crash the market. That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity.
        hackyhacky 8mo ago
        > That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity. We've been saying this about many policies of this administration, only to be sorely disappointed.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
- SanjayMehta 8mo ago
  All our Intel Macs are getting repurposed for Ubuntu LTS - whatever version which supports our CAD tools.
  - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
    Recommend Mint instead. Flatpak instead of snap.
    - SanjayMehta 8mo ago
      Some tools go out of their way to whine piteously if they can't find Ubuntu in /etc/issue et al. We were using Mint, just got tired of messing with installation scripts every time an upgrade came. And as the transition to Linux accelerates, it's just more convenient to stick with whatever the vendor wants.
      - inetknght 8mo ago
        > tools go out of their way to whine piteously if they can't find Ubuntu in /etc/issue et al If those tools are open source, fix them. If they're not open source, don't use them. Problem solved. It's not hard to write an installation script.
        justinclift 8mo ago
        AFAIK most professional CAD tools, or the GUIs anyway, are Windows only. Some of the previously *nix friendly ones (ie Siemens NX) have even moved to only being available for Windows.
        SanjayMehta 8mo ago
        These are proprietary tools, the install scripts are editable shell scripts but we don't want to mess with them any more.
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
- vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
  “ the tech companies were on the side of the American people” They are on the side of making money. And the bigger they are, the more pressure. The big tech companies are now so big that they can’t afford to leave any money in the table if they want to keep their growth rates.
- kdheiwns 8mo ago
  Tech companies in the early 2000s were nerds who grew up in an environment where tech was for losers and a waste of time. A lot of those people had strong values and did it because they enjoyed it and wanted other nerds like themselves to have cool stuff. Now companies are dominated by MBAs and nepotism. Most join tech for a quick cash out. Having values is seen as a loss, because if you can get a billion, why not? You're invincible if you're rich and none of these downsides apply to you. Screw everyone else. They could just be a billionaire themselves if they don't like it. As a result, zoomers today meme about people like the unabomber making a good point.
  - hackit2 8mo ago
    That can be so far from the truth it hurts thinking about it. Governments passed laws that mandated that businesses must legally comply with DOJ or Government Investigates on people of interest. Otherwise they will be blocked in those countries. No users = No money. Most government consider they're extending you the privilege to conduct business with their citizens, and by virtue of granting you those rights you're burden with complying with the countries laws/security and/or audits.
  - matheusmoreira 8mo ago
    > As a result, zoomers today meme about people like the unabomber making a good point. I don't blame them. As a nerd I think my spirit was broken by the absolute apathy of the normies. It was easy to ignore up until the early 2000s. It's become unbearable after social media and the iPhone reached the masses. It's not nerd stuff anymore. They influence every design now. They shape every decision. They are actively exploited at every turn. They are profiled, surveilled, controlled. It's gotten to the point even we nerds can't escape this fate no matter how much we want to. We try to tell them about it and we're made out to be tinfoil hat nutjobs. It's happening and they don't care. It feels so hopeless and it's honestly very radicalizing. It breeds sociopathy. In the end I can't find the will to blame the billionaires either. I think I'd do the same if I could. Make billions and then just create a small paradise for me and all the people I care about. A subset of society where the principles I hold dear actually apply. Society is too fucked up and nobody cares, so I'll just create my own fiefdom.
- tolerance 8mo ago
  > Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. Companies such as?
  - int32_64 8mo ago
    Qwest tried and many believe the CEO went to prison as retaliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
    - 6510 8mo ago
      Fascinating story. For 6 years and had to pay 44 m (He is still worth well over 100 m)
  - waffleiron 8mo ago
    I still think Lavabit did something a lot of tech companies these days would never do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
- GaryBluto 8mo ago
  > Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM PRISM started in 2007, during the Iraq war.
  - leptons 8mo ago
    PRISM always seemed to me like an extension of ECHELON from the 1960s. Governments have been doing sigint for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
- iwontberude 8mo ago
  Your critique of Apple and Tim Cook is unsubstantiated and misleading. That same Tim Cook stood up to the FBI and refused to participate in breaking into phones for them when they were pressed in 2015-2016. The same Apple that later fought against the government forcing document scanning in iCloud and was able to keep them off device. They have been fighting the whole time. Apple is was first to normalize whole disk encryption on commercial machines, they have made Safari a weapon against tracking which is abused by governments. Also every single company in the US is subject to National Security Letters and Apple uses warrant canaries to inform the public within the limits of the law. And then to appeal to Anthropic is just offensively, willfully ignorant.
  - dns_snek 8mo ago
    > That same Tim Cook stood up to the FBI and refused to participate in breaking into phones for them I hope you have more evidence for this than just that press release. As far as I'm concerned that was nothing more than a stunt because while Tim Cook "fought" against the FBI, intelligence agencies and private cybersecurity companies already had the capability to break into ~all smartphones. That single instance created an unreasonable amount of belief that iPhones are unbreakable, which is good news if you're the FBI and you want criminals to put way more trust into their iPhones than they should. The same Apple actively aids Chinese government's suppression of civil liberties [1]. To think that there's any ideological conviction (and moral high ground) behind their [apparent] pro-privacy stance is painfully naive. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/apple-limits-iphone-filesharing-feature-used-by-protesters-in-china https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/apple-limits-i...
- efnx 8mo ago
  Can you substantiate these claims with with anything? What unlawful DoJ demands has Apple given in to? Anthropic is still very early in their trajectory compared to Apple with its ~50 year run, so it's not exactly an Apple to apples comparison.
  - fsflover 8mo ago
    This seems relevant: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps (boingboing.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520407
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > That has all changed today Anecdote, but I knew a couple senior folks at Apple during the San Bernardino encryption dispute [1]. My understanding is Cupertino was surprised—going all the way to the top—how much backlash they got for what they felt was the natural reaction. (Not to unlock.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
  - veeti 8mo ago
    Just the "screeching voices of the minority". https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/06/internal-memo-at-apple-addresses-public-concern-over-new-child-protection-features https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/06/internal-memo-at-...
    - j45 8mo ago
      Maybe Gen z and Gen a added being counted on to not know it could be different than default no privacy.
- txrx0000 8mo ago
  Anthropic is not on the side of the people. None of these companies are. They've made it clear that they want to gatekeep LLM capabilities. https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... These companies use safety and intellectual property as excuses to achieve centralization. But if you think about it for more than a second, they're basically saying "intelligence for me but not for thee." I don't want to live in a world where a handful of entities control all of the intelligence, and I don't think you do either. The best future we can hope for is one where everyone can run an open-source AGI on their own gaming PC. And by run I mean local matmuls, not API calls to a remote server.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - j45 8mo ago
    Safety and regulations very much can be used by companies as a moat to slow down competitors and inhibit future ones.
- verisimi 8mo ago
  There are such things and secret courts with secret rulings. You and I have no idea what is actually occurring because of this secrecy; we can only talk about that which is stated publicly.
- eucyclos 8mo ago
  "fuck you money" meets "money's getting shallow and weak"
- heavyset_go 8mo ago
  Platforms went into full "Islamic extremist" panic for decades and would handover whatever the government wanted in the name of national security, would allow users to be spied upon over time, silence users and remove content, and users' private data was collated for, for example, research purposes. That said, Anthropic finances PACs[1] that push legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)[2] that would make Anthropic the gatekeepers and censors of all user-generated content on the internet, in order to save the children. That same legislation would force you to scan your face and ID to access or create user-generated content online, again, to save the children. Anthropic would get paid to train on, and censor, all user-generated content that's shared online into perpetuity. If passed, it would also mark the death of free anonymous speech on the internet. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/12/anthropic-gives-20-million-to-group-pushing-for-ai-regulations-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/12/anthropic-gives-20-million-t... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/congresss-crusade-age-gate-internet-2025-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/congresss-crusade-age-...
- akimbostrawman 8mo ago
  >the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment. So not only will we pretend PRISM didn't happen but somehow they even fought it?
- Cthulhu_ 8mo ago
  It hasn't really changed, the only thing that's truly different is what they publish. But the Snowden leaks confirmed what many people already suspected - the American agencies have silent, backdoor access to all US based internet companies. I don't know if it can be verified whether end-to-end encryption like Whatsapp and co claim to offer is actually safe. I suspect it isn't, but, I don't know enough.
  - j45 8mo ago
    If it dies off in the news cycle or social media likely lots of perks don’t know or remember.
- yodsanklai 8mo ago
  I don't think a big company can be on the side of anything, except making money, unless there's a majority owner. This is by design. If fighting the government is going to hurt the company more than not doing it they won't do it. The US government also has the possibility to blackmail people decision individually (like they do with European politicians or international court judges).
- js8 8mo ago
  "The tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment." I doubt it. The largest tech companies of the time were Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Oracle and IBM. It would be nice if you were more specific.
  - j45 8mo ago
    You should ask people who were there instead of doubting. News articles are extremely available and things were so early that they did all fight like hell as a new industry. The internet itself was the new unknown tech to politicians and their lobbyists just like ai is now. Little is actually new except it’s maybe be to you just like the current crop of politicians the tech of the day that might impact power or connection between people.
    - js8 8mo ago
      I am asking, maybe you misread my comment? IBM, for instance, was part of military-industrial complex before the term was coined. That's why I am quite skeptical of the claim.
      - j45 8mo ago
        The assumption of whether IBM m a major player in the tech or Internet side of things pertaining to the protest might be worth looking into. Relationships between govt and tech industry for sure have existed, at that time the relevant and participatory parties may not have been present, or present in the way or on the sides being assumed if compared to today. It’s actually a pretty interesting read.
SanjayMehta 8mo ago
"Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance for the govt." FTFY They're going to spy on you regardless.
wolvesechoes 8mo ago
Oh, they do not need to be bullied at all, even if they present it differently for PR points.
camillomiller 8mo ago
Well, it seems they don’t need that much bullying. They are absolutely happy to contribute if it means favors, no tariffs, more profit etc
saurik 8mo ago
Maybe tech companies should try a bit harder to not centralize the world's information, unencrypted, on servers they control.
- sejje 8mo ago
  Amen. But then they can't make their billions selling our data.
- uutangohotel 8mo ago
  oops accidental surveillance machine
  - ReptileMan 8mo ago
    Nothing accidental and no oops.
- KennyBlanken 8mo ago
  Huh? That's basically an integral part of nearly any tech company's life cycle? You might as well suggest Mobil not sell gasoline or oil.
  - saurik 8mo ago
    Then the EFF shouldn't be defending the existence of tech companies :/.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
browningstreet 8mo ago
Hegseth & Co. has Grok but they actually want Claude. Elon hates Anthropic and.. well.. Hegseth has the power to put the hurt on them. Anthropic opened themselves to this disaster by making that first contract with the military. I don’t want them to lose this battle but it’s also one they brought upon themselves by stepping into that arena.
djoldman 8mo ago
As an aside, why is it not a law that the government can't pay another entity to do something it's not allowed to do itself, without a warrant? I'm thinking about geo data from mobile apps.
- samename 8mo ago
  It’s due to the third party doctrine, a Supreme Court precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
  - avs733 8mo ago
    which has been warped all out of any comprehensible reality. It hinges on the idea of 'voluntarily' turning over information. Much of what is now considered information voluntarily turned over isn't even information that people know exist much less that they are turning over much less doing so voluntarily.
    - inetknght 8mo ago
      It's not voluntary if you don't know about it.
    - KennyBlanken 8mo ago
      Requiring someone pay for information by any common sense interpretation isn't voluntary. The courts have lost their goddamn minds.
  - pseudalopex 8mo ago
    The 3rd party doctrine is why it is allowed when no law restricts it. It does not prevent Congress to pass a law.
    - samename 8mo ago
      And yet, Congress hasn't passed a law to prevent it
deadbabe 8mo ago
If they give in I will cancel all Anthropic subscriptions and never use anything created by them again. Recent versions of Claude were getting shitty anyway, I could go without it.
- metadat 8mo ago
  All other foundation model providers already caved (OpenAI, Google).
  - deadbabe 8mo ago
    I self host
  - nickthegreek 8mo ago
    OpenAI and Google have not signed contracts to work in Classified systems. The points are moot without that. If and when they do, it is important that the public know. It was just Anthropic that was cleared to be used in classified systems. xAi signed that contract this week though I believe.
nzeid 8mo ago
Agree but a terrifyingly large number of tech companies have garbage security so the bullying is often unnecessary.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
linksnapzz 8mo ago
Neither should banks, but that ship has sailed.
gaigalas 8mo ago
Totally agree with the statement: Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance. I would personally add "bullied, coerced and/or gaslighted into doing surveillance". I don't understand why the US government is doing this though. Wouldn't it be much easier to do use some of the already passed laws on foreign intelligence to open a surveillance data pipeline? You know, like PRISM. I mean, this is inconsistent with the previous M.O., and highly unusual. I also feel very conflicted to suddenly have to "defend Anthropic", a company that has been systematically doing evil things (destabilizing markets, promoting misleading media campaings, etc). I don't want to defend those guys. Can I just dislike both the US military and Anthropic at the same time, and say there are no good guys here?
ChrisArchitect 8mo ago
Related: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47142587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47142587
isodev 8mo ago
Tech companies shouldn’t be able to do surveillance.
samrus 8mo ago
Bullied into doing surveillance? Brother a large part of the tech companies valuations are built on how well they allow the government to do surveillance if the governement wants. They arent victims being bullied, they all knew this day would come ajd most were happy about it
- ReptileMan 8mo ago
  Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus Government: Why do you think that you will keep it for yourself?
bamboozled 8mo ago
A lot of people shouldn't be bullied, but here we are, 2026, in "the free world".
mcs5280 8mo ago
Imagine a world where businesses considered the morality of their decisions instead of just maximizing profits
dackdel 8mo ago
I think they are paid & bribed into it, not bullied.
givemeethekeys 8mo ago
The Patriot Act and Data Analytical Services (DAS) program among others are examples of the government using surveillance as soon as the opportunity presents itself. What would you do if you were a government in-charge of keeping a country full of independent thinkers safe from themselves?
moezd 8mo ago
The reason a tech company exists isn't solely your convenience. They need to find different ways to bill you, so they start by collecting telemetry. If their offering is a multi-tenant situation from their backend, then they need to address the noisy neighbor problem, thundering herd, abuse detection... The more programmable the product is, the heavier impact these tools have, and at some point, it gathers the attention of the state. They are not bullied, the tech companies are not the victims here. You are, as a customer, because you're lured in with generous free tier offerings first and you're locked in over time, and when the inevitable comes you either 1) Consider migration 2) Accept the vendor lock-in to whatever degree that feels comfortable to you.
politelemon 8mo ago
This post makes me wonder if the EFF are adopting a deliberately obtuse stance. The tech companies that dominate the landscape have gotten to their lofty heights on the back of surveillance, which is being ignored here. The only difference is where the information is flowing. Their energy would be better spent convincing Google, Apple, and Microsoft to not become the gatekeepers of said information. Sadly it's our own years of encouraging and going to bat for these same companies that make us complicit.
ynac 8mo ago
Bullied? As I understand a few of the situations over the past 15-20 years I've been near, it was either a false bully (Godfather II, Michael at the Senate hearings) or just an outright delivery on promise - already paid for, thank you. Either way, it's ALL business.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
ReptileMan 8mo ago
I don't think that there ever was big tech company bullied into surveillance. They do it on their own volition. The tech companies said to the users - all your data is belong to us. The US said the companies - all your data is belong to us. It is amusing.
SeriousM 8mo ago
The problem is not that tech companies can be forced to do bad, it is that government entities are able to do so. This is quite the same discussion like players shouldn't cheat, yet it's not the fault of the game but the player that is behaving wrong. So search the responsibilities on the acting side.
- RobotToaster 8mo ago
  More than one thing can be a problem.
flipped 8mo ago
Bullied? When they find out how much money there is to be made in surveillance business, they will do it voluntarily.
ajuc 8mo ago
They aren't bullied. They are just paid.
black_13 8mo ago
[dead]
palata 8mo ago
"But we cannot be profitable if we don't do surveillance". I don't believe that surveillance capitalism was created by governments "bullying" companies. I am curious about how far a project like Confer can go, but I wouldn't be surprised if it couldn't be profitable (because it is designed to not do surveillance).
brandensilva 8mo ago
I'm afraid that all the foxes are in the chicken coop at this point. Which is a nice way to say we're probably hosed until the people rise up and force change. It does seem like Anthropic is at least the only big AI company that is pursuing some safety discussions around their technology like not using it for surveillance and war for killing people autonomously. This administration is wielding a power that was meant to serve Americans in the past by forcing companies to conform to an agenda that is anti-democratic/freedom/constitutional. I'm just not confident they will stand against this administration when the going gets tough but let's see what happens this Friday I guess.
- libertine 8mo ago
  What makes you think there are any chickens left? Because it looks like it's all foxes. This administration got elected because tech billionaires invested in it. They were right behind them, and I mean literally. Isn't it possible that this was all deliberately done by tech companies to get access to data and consolidate their position, and secure public funding?
  - voidhorse 8mo ago
    This. Most of them weren't exactly bullied. Outside of having a military, several tech companies are probably more powerful than nation states at this point, and I think some of them realize this. As long as a complete slip into barbarism is still not fully on the table, nations need the data that tech companies have more or less entirely captured and established a complete hegemony around at this point. They also rely directly on their products. I guess the EU is starting to wake up to how problematic this is.
  - GiorgioG 8mo ago
    Let's not pretend this started with this administration. I'm not pointing any fingers at any one party or politician, but this is nothing new: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(1970–2013) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... 'By the late 1990s ECHELON was reportedly capable of monitoring up to 90% of all internet traffic. According to the BBC in May 2001, however, "The US Government still refused to admit that Echelon even exists."'
Havoc 8mo ago
Bully? It’s their goddamn business model.
ozgung 8mo ago
Is there really a clear separation between tech companies and surveillance/military or is it wishful thinking? I've recently rewatched Steve Blanks's "Secret History of Silicon Valley" talk [1]. Until 80's most SV startups seem to be financed directly by the military. This changes only after the rise of private VC. But for strategic technologies like internet, search, communication, social media and finally AI, they still have to have control over them. "User Data" everyone talks about is not limited with consumer behavior. The real money is on how we think and act as citizens of this world. The whole world wouldn't give all their data to an app named Uncle Sam or CCP. But we are happy to give the same information to Facebook, Google, ChatGPT or TikTok. They are free and they don't want our money. [1] https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?si=ZfRNgpqJOP6hVLKC https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?si=ZfRNgpqJOP6hVLKC
- aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
  > Is there really a clear separation between tech companies and surveillance/military or is it wishful thinking? The separation was never completely clear, but there was a time when the separation was much more marked. The reason was simply that programming culture at that time was more "chaotic", "anti-authoritarian", "open-source"/"free software" (in the erstwhile understanding of this being just a part of a bigger movement, not in the verbal sense), "radical privacy" (cypherpunk), "hacking" (including the legally dubious aspects) etc. These values were quite opposite to those of the military-industrial or surveillance-industrial complex, so there was a lot of friction between the cultures of the tech companies at that time and these complexes, which made it not particularly attractive for these sides to partner - if only because of the frictions between the sides that were to overcome.
- rainingmonkey 8mo ago
  "Surveillance Valley" is another excellent book about the tech industry's military roots.
duxup 8mo ago
But many tech companies try to track everyone for their own reasons ... They are surveillance companies. That's part of the problem.
- InfinityByTen 8mo ago
  This is an underrated observation. The companies built surveillance as a competitive advantage. The "system" rewards bolstering this advantage.
  - j45 8mo ago
    Distributing surveillance id the data of your usage is extremely difference from understanding how your app is being used.
- kgwxd 8mo ago
  We don't grant companies extraordinary powers to arrest/imprison/kill for any reason they see fit. The government involvement problem is VERY separate from the greedy company problem. And the government is supposed to be working for the people, we don't like being spied on, they should be making laws to prevent it, not looking to get in on it. There's even a document they're supposed to be referring to for guidance on such issues.
  - j45 8mo ago
    Increasingly with our digital identities we are citizens of private companies that don’t need governance it’s all or nothing.
- YetAnotherNick 8mo ago
  There is a difference between tracking with real name, vs tracking with unique identifier for showing better ads. I really don't understand how people in HN think that tracking for showing personalized short videos is same as sending names of people who searched for particular term to police.
  - 8mo ago
jaunt7632 8mo ago
[dead]
doodaddy 8mo ago
I’ve supported the EFF for a long time. I think what they do and stand for is important. But I can’t help but feel utterly disillusioned with all of it now. Each press release just reads as naïve to me. At one point it felt like there was a real possibility that their viewpoint would be thoughtfully discussed and actioned on. But now…I don’t know. The lack of notable “wind” doesn’t help and all the trends just don’t give me confidence that the tide will turn any time soon. Maybe the part that makes me most sad is that for those of us who have been doing this for, well, our entire lives, it’s just not the outcome any of us envisioned but it’s the outcome that (almost) all of us have been party to even if in some small way.
- malwrar 8mo ago
  It feels like tech freedom politics really died sometime in the net neutrality and SOPA days. Hurts to watch as this failure scenario plays out.
shimman 8mo ago
Tech companies should be bullied into paying more taxes and being broken up.
everdrive 8mo ago
They cannot be bullied into surveillance if they have nothing worthwhile to provide. As long as surveillance capitalism exists, there will at best be a risk that the government could abuse the surveillance data. Laws and regulations can help, but even the best laws and regulations could be skirted, amended, or simply repealed by a future administration.
1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago
Surveillance as a Service SaaS
we_have_options 8mo ago
And what I'm wondering is why SecDev H thinks that forcing Anthropic to integrate their AI with the country's mass surveillance and autonomous drone strike technology is a winning move for him. "Ok, if you don't do what I tell you then you HAVE to connect the autonomous AI engine that only you understand and control, I repeat you HAVE to connect your golem to my control systems." Like a bank robber threatening to hand the gun to the teller if they don't put the money in the bag. Like SecDev H "open claw"-ing the entire US military.
- UncleOxidant 8mo ago
  Exactly this. Just another example of how Hegseth is completely unqualified and way out of his depth.
MetroWind 8mo ago
OR... maybe they want to do it.
_slih 8mo ago
once the infrastructure exists, it gets repurposed. age verification becomes watchlist screening becomes facial similarity scoring against political figures. scope creep is the feature.
know-how 8mo ago
[dead]

506 points by pseudolus 8mo ago

Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment. That has all changed today, except for Anthropic. You think Apple is going to stand up to an unlawful DoJ demand these days? Hell no. Tim Cook has lit Apple's reputation on fire. I've been a super dedicated Apple user for 25 years, but I'm heading for the exits now. All that trust has been burned. Stay strong Anthoproc, you are seemingly the only really large SV company with any principles and backbone. I won't forget what happens here, either way it goes.

myvoiceismypass 8mo ago
Hate to break the news but they might not be good guys either - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47145963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47145963 (Dropping safety pledge)
- ipaddr 8mo ago
  They over did the safety aspect in my opinion.
- reasonableklout 8mo ago
  Do you think it's possible the two are related?
  - yunnpp 8mo ago
    It's obvious that they are. The best thing the company could do if they want to stick to principles is not be based in the US.
    - givemeethekeys 8mo ago
      And, where should they be based out of?
      - justinclift 8mo ago
        Switzerland used to the well known place for this. Not so sure any more though.
pamcake 8mo ago
I'd hold off making that call on Anthropic here until at least after Friday. I'm not sure if persisting that "constructive dialogue is taking place in good faith" and saying nothing else in public signifies backbone considering preceding and consecutive public statements by government officials... It certainly doesn't instil confidence in honesty or transparency.
- bpodgursky 8mo ago
  I mean they got threatened with the Defense Production Act. Firmly standing their ground without an inch of give may backfire spectacularly too, if the DoD injects itself into model training. I think they pretty clearly demonstrated good faith and where it ends up is a tactical choice I'm not in a great position to judge.
  - tehjoker 8mo ago
    If DoD seizes the IP, the issue is they will need the cooperation of their scientists at least in the short term, if they want it to remain a fronter model. The labor angle isn't entirely guaranteed though the white collar worker has very little spine in this country.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > DoD seizes the IP Almost certainly not on the table. If Hegseth did this he’d crash the market. That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity.
      - hackyhacky 8mo ago
        > That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity. We've been saying this about many policies of this administration, only to be sorely disappointed.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
SanjayMehta 8mo ago
All our Intel Macs are getting repurposed for Ubuntu LTS - whatever version which supports our CAD tools.
- mixmastamyk 8mo ago
  Recommend Mint instead. Flatpak instead of snap.
  - SanjayMehta 8mo ago
    Some tools go out of their way to whine piteously if they can't find Ubuntu in /etc/issue et al. We were using Mint, just got tired of messing with installation scripts every time an upgrade came. And as the transition to Linux accelerates, it's just more convenient to stick with whatever the vendor wants.
    - inetknght 8mo ago
      > tools go out of their way to whine piteously if they can't find Ubuntu in /etc/issue et al If those tools are open source, fix them. If they're not open source, don't use them. Problem solved. It's not hard to write an installation script.
      - justinclift 8mo ago
        AFAIK most professional CAD tools, or the GUIs anyway, are Windows only. Some of the previously *nix friendly ones (ie Siemens NX) have even moved to only being available for Windows.
      - SanjayMehta 8mo ago
        These are proprietary tools, the install scripts are editable shell scripts but we don't want to mess with them any more.
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
“ the tech companies were on the side of the American people” They are on the side of making money. And the bigger they are, the more pressure. The big tech companies are now so big that they can’t afford to leave any money in the table if they want to keep their growth rates.
kdheiwns 8mo ago
Tech companies in the early 2000s were nerds who grew up in an environment where tech was for losers and a waste of time. A lot of those people had strong values and did it because they enjoyed it and wanted other nerds like themselves to have cool stuff. Now companies are dominated by MBAs and nepotism. Most join tech for a quick cash out. Having values is seen as a loss, because if you can get a billion, why not? You're invincible if you're rich and none of these downsides apply to you. Screw everyone else. They could just be a billionaire themselves if they don't like it. As a result, zoomers today meme about people like the unabomber making a good point.
- hackit2 8mo ago
  That can be so far from the truth it hurts thinking about it. Governments passed laws that mandated that businesses must legally comply with DOJ or Government Investigates on people of interest. Otherwise they will be blocked in those countries. No users = No money. Most government consider they're extending you the privilege to conduct business with their citizens, and by virtue of granting you those rights you're burden with complying with the countries laws/security and/or audits.
- matheusmoreira 8mo ago
  > As a result, zoomers today meme about people like the unabomber making a good point. I don't blame them. As a nerd I think my spirit was broken by the absolute apathy of the normies. It was easy to ignore up until the early 2000s. It's become unbearable after social media and the iPhone reached the masses. It's not nerd stuff anymore. They influence every design now. They shape every decision. They are actively exploited at every turn. They are profiled, surveilled, controlled. It's gotten to the point even we nerds can't escape this fate no matter how much we want to. We try to tell them about it and we're made out to be tinfoil hat nutjobs. It's happening and they don't care. It feels so hopeless and it's honestly very radicalizing. It breeds sociopathy. In the end I can't find the will to blame the billionaires either. I think I'd do the same if I could. Make billions and then just create a small paradise for me and all the people I care about. A subset of society where the principles I hold dear actually apply. Society is too fucked up and nobody cares, so I'll just create my own fiefdom.
tolerance 8mo ago
> Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. Companies such as?
- int32_64 8mo ago
  Qwest tried and many believe the CEO went to prison as retaliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
  - 6510 8mo ago
    Fascinating story. For 6 years and had to pay 44 m (He is still worth well over 100 m)
- waffleiron 8mo ago
  I still think Lavabit did something a lot of tech companies these days would never do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
GaryBluto 8mo ago
> Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM PRISM started in 2007, during the Iraq war.
- leptons 8mo ago
  PRISM always seemed to me like an extension of ECHELON from the 1960s. Governments have been doing sigint for a very long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
iwontberude 8mo ago
Your critique of Apple and Tim Cook is unsubstantiated and misleading. That same Tim Cook stood up to the FBI and refused to participate in breaking into phones for them when they were pressed in 2015-2016. The same Apple that later fought against the government forcing document scanning in iCloud and was able to keep them off device. They have been fighting the whole time. Apple is was first to normalize whole disk encryption on commercial machines, they have made Safari a weapon against tracking which is abused by governments. Also every single company in the US is subject to National Security Letters and Apple uses warrant canaries to inform the public within the limits of the law. And then to appeal to Anthropic is just offensively, willfully ignorant.
- dns_snek 8mo ago
  > That same Tim Cook stood up to the FBI and refused to participate in breaking into phones for them I hope you have more evidence for this than just that press release. As far as I'm concerned that was nothing more than a stunt because while Tim Cook "fought" against the FBI, intelligence agencies and private cybersecurity companies already had the capability to break into ~all smartphones. That single instance created an unreasonable amount of belief that iPhones are unbreakable, which is good news if you're the FBI and you want criminals to put way more trust into their iPhones than they should. The same Apple actively aids Chinese government's suppression of civil liberties [1]. To think that there's any ideological conviction (and moral high ground) behind their [apparent] pro-privacy stance is painfully naive. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/apple-limits-iphone-filesharing-feature-used-by-protesters-in-china https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/apple-limits-i...
efnx 8mo ago
Can you substantiate these claims with with anything? What unlawful DoJ demands has Apple given in to? Anthropic is still very early in their trajectory compared to Apple with its ~50 year run, so it's not exactly an Apple to apples comparison.
- fsflover 8mo ago
  This seems relevant: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps (boingboing.net) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520407
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> That has all changed today Anecdote, but I knew a couple senior folks at Apple during the San Bernardino encryption dispute [1]. My understanding is Cupertino was surprised—going all the way to the top—how much backlash they got for what they felt was the natural reaction. (Not to unlock.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
- veeti 8mo ago
  Just the "screeching voices of the minority". https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/06/internal-memo-at-apple-addresses-public-concern-over-new-child-protection-features https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/06/internal-memo-at-...
  - j45 8mo ago
    Maybe Gen z and Gen a added being counted on to not know it could be different than default no privacy.
txrx0000 8mo ago
Anthropic is not on the side of the people. None of these companies are. They've made it clear that they want to gatekeep LLM capabilities. https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-distillation-attacks https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... These companies use safety and intellectual property as excuses to achieve centralization. But if you think about it for more than a second, they're basically saying "intelligence for me but not for thee." I don't want to live in a world where a handful of entities control all of the intelligence, and I don't think you do either. The best future we can hope for is one where everyone can run an open-source AGI on their own gaming PC. And by run I mean local matmuls, not API calls to a remote server.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- j45 8mo ago
  Safety and regulations very much can be used by companies as a moat to slow down competitors and inhibit future ones.
verisimi 8mo ago
There are such things and secret courts with secret rulings. You and I have no idea what is actually occurring because of this secrecy; we can only talk about that which is stated publicly.
eucyclos 8mo ago
"fuck you money" meets "money's getting shallow and weak"
heavyset_go 8mo ago
Platforms went into full "Islamic extremist" panic for decades and would handover whatever the government wanted in the name of national security, would allow users to be spied upon over time, silence users and remove content, and users' private data was collated for, for example, research purposes. That said, Anthropic finances PACs[1] that push legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)[2] that would make Anthropic the gatekeepers and censors of all user-generated content on the internet, in order to save the children. That same legislation would force you to scan your face and ID to access or create user-generated content online, again, to save the children. Anthropic would get paid to train on, and censor, all user-generated content that's shared online into perpetuity. If passed, it would also mark the death of free anonymous speech on the internet. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/12/anthropic-gives-20-million-to-group-pushing-for-ai-regulations-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/12/anthropic-gives-20-million-t... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/congresss-crusade-age-gate-internet-2025-review https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/congresss-crusade-age-...
akimbostrawman 8mo ago
>the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment. So not only will we pretend PRISM didn't happen but somehow they even fought it?
Cthulhu_ 8mo ago
It hasn't really changed, the only thing that's truly different is what they publish. But the Snowden leaks confirmed what many people already suspected - the American agencies have silent, backdoor access to all US based internet companies. I don't know if it can be verified whether end-to-end encryption like Whatsapp and co claim to offer is actually safe. I suspect it isn't, but, I don't know enough.
- j45 8mo ago
  If it dies off in the news cycle or social media likely lots of perks don’t know or remember.
yodsanklai 8mo ago
I don't think a big company can be on the side of anything, except making money, unless there's a majority owner. This is by design. If fighting the government is going to hurt the company more than not doing it they won't do it. The US government also has the possibility to blackmail people decision individually (like they do with European politicians or international court judges).
js8 8mo ago
"The tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment." I doubt it. The largest tech companies of the time were Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Oracle and IBM. It would be nice if you were more specific.
- j45 8mo ago
  You should ask people who were there instead of doubting. News articles are extremely available and things were so early that they did all fight like hell as a new industry. The internet itself was the new unknown tech to politicians and their lobbyists just like ai is now. Little is actually new except it’s maybe be to you just like the current crop of politicians the tech of the day that might impact power or connection between people.
  - js8 8mo ago
    I am asking, maybe you misread my comment? IBM, for instance, was part of military-industrial complex before the term was coined. That's why I am quite skeptical of the claim.
    - j45 8mo ago
      The assumption of whether IBM m a major player in the tech or Internet side of things pertaining to the protest might be worth looking into. Relationships between govt and tech industry for sure have existed, at that time the relevant and participatory parties may not have been present, or present in the way or on the sides being assumed if compared to today. It’s actually a pretty interesting read.

SanjayMehta 8mo ago

"Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance for the govt." FTFY They're going to spy on you regardless.

wolvesechoes 8mo ago

Oh, they do not need to be bullied at all, even if they present it differently for PR points.

camillomiller 8mo ago

Well, it seems they don’t need that much bullying. They are absolutely happy to contribute if it means favors, no tariffs, more profit etc

saurik 8mo ago

Maybe tech companies should try a bit harder to not centralize the world's information, unencrypted, on servers they control.

sejje 8mo ago
Amen. But then they can't make their billions selling our data.
uutangohotel 8mo ago
oops accidental surveillance machine
- ReptileMan 8mo ago
  Nothing accidental and no oops.
KennyBlanken 8mo ago
Huh? That's basically an integral part of nearly any tech company's life cycle? You might as well suggest Mobil not sell gasoline or oil.
- saurik 8mo ago
  Then the EFF shouldn't be defending the existence of tech companies :/.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

browningstreet 8mo ago

Hegseth & Co. has Grok but they actually want Claude. Elon hates Anthropic and.. well.. Hegseth has the power to put the hurt on them. Anthropic opened themselves to this disaster by making that first contract with the military. I don’t want them to lose this battle but it’s also one they brought upon themselves by stepping into that arena.

djoldman 8mo ago

As an aside, why is it not a law that the government can't pay another entity to do something it's not allowed to do itself, without a warrant? I'm thinking about geo data from mobile apps.

samename 8mo ago
It’s due to the third party doctrine, a Supreme Court precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- avs733 8mo ago
  which has been warped all out of any comprehensible reality. It hinges on the idea of 'voluntarily' turning over information. Much of what is now considered information voluntarily turned over isn't even information that people know exist much less that they are turning over much less doing so voluntarily.
  - inetknght 8mo ago
    It's not voluntary if you don't know about it.
  - KennyBlanken 8mo ago
    Requiring someone pay for information by any common sense interpretation isn't voluntary. The courts have lost their goddamn minds.
- pseudalopex 8mo ago
  The 3rd party doctrine is why it is allowed when no law restricts it. It does not prevent Congress to pass a law.
  - samename 8mo ago
    And yet, Congress hasn't passed a law to prevent it

deadbabe 8mo ago

If they give in I will cancel all Anthropic subscriptions and never use anything created by them again. Recent versions of Claude were getting shitty anyway, I could go without it.

metadat 8mo ago
All other foundation model providers already caved (OpenAI, Google).
- deadbabe 8mo ago
  I self host
- nickthegreek 8mo ago
  OpenAI and Google have not signed contracts to work in Classified systems. The points are moot without that. If and when they do, it is important that the public know. It was just Anthropic that was cleared to be used in classified systems. xAi signed that contract this week though I believe.

nzeid 8mo ago

Agree but a terrifyingly large number of tech companies have garbage security so the bullying is often unnecessary.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

linksnapzz 8mo ago

Neither should banks, but that ship has sailed.

gaigalas 8mo ago

Totally agree with the statement: Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance. I would personally add "bullied, coerced and/or gaslighted into doing surveillance". I don't understand why the US government is doing this though. Wouldn't it be much easier to do use some of the already passed laws on foreign intelligence to open a surveillance data pipeline? You know, like PRISM. I mean, this is inconsistent with the previous M.O., and highly unusual. I also feel very conflicted to suddenly have to "defend Anthropic", a company that has been systematically doing evil things (destabilizing markets, promoting misleading media campaings, etc). I don't want to defend those guys. Can I just dislike both the US military and Anthropic at the same time, and say there are no good guys here?

ChrisArchitect 8mo ago

Related: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47142587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47142587

isodev 8mo ago

Tech companies shouldn’t be able to do surveillance.

samrus 8mo ago

Bullied into doing surveillance? Brother a large part of the tech companies valuations are built on how well they allow the government to do surveillance if the governement wants. They arent victims being bullied, they all knew this day would come ajd most were happy about it

ReptileMan 8mo ago
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus Government: Why do you think that you will keep it for yourself?

bamboozled 8mo ago

A lot of people shouldn't be bullied, but here we are, 2026, in "the free world".

mcs5280 8mo ago

Imagine a world where businesses considered the morality of their decisions instead of just maximizing profits

dackdel 8mo ago

I think they are paid & bribed into it, not bullied.

givemeethekeys 8mo ago

The Patriot Act and Data Analytical Services (DAS) program among others are examples of the government using surveillance as soon as the opportunity presents itself. What would you do if you were a government in-charge of keeping a country full of independent thinkers safe from themselves?

moezd 8mo ago

The reason a tech company exists isn't solely your convenience. They need to find different ways to bill you, so they start by collecting telemetry. If their offering is a multi-tenant situation from their backend, then they need to address the noisy neighbor problem, thundering herd, abuse detection... The more programmable the product is, the heavier impact these tools have, and at some point, it gathers the attention of the state. They are not bullied, the tech companies are not the victims here. You are, as a customer, because you're lured in with generous free tier offerings first and you're locked in over time, and when the inevitable comes you either 1) Consider migration 2) Accept the vendor lock-in to whatever degree that feels comfortable to you.

politelemon 8mo ago

This post makes me wonder if the EFF are adopting a deliberately obtuse stance. The tech companies that dominate the landscape have gotten to their lofty heights on the back of surveillance, which is being ignored here. The only difference is where the information is flowing. Their energy would be better spent convincing Google, Apple, and Microsoft to not become the gatekeepers of said information. Sadly it's our own years of encouraging and going to bat for these same companies that make us complicit.

ynac 8mo ago

Bullied? As I understand a few of the situations over the past 15-20 years I've been near, it was either a false bully (Godfather II, Michael at the Senate hearings) or just an outright delivery on promise - already paid for, thank you. Either way, it's ALL business.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

ReptileMan 8mo ago

I don't think that there ever was big tech company bullied into surveillance. They do it on their own volition. The tech companies said to the users - all your data is belong to us. The US said the companies - all your data is belong to us. It is amusing.

SeriousM 8mo ago

The problem is not that tech companies can be forced to do bad, it is that government entities are able to do so. This is quite the same discussion like players shouldn't cheat, yet it's not the fault of the game but the player that is behaving wrong. So search the responsibilities on the acting side.

RobotToaster 8mo ago
More than one thing can be a problem.

flipped 8mo ago

Bullied? When they find out how much money there is to be made in surveillance business, they will do it voluntarily.

ajuc 8mo ago

They aren't bullied. They are just paid.

black_13 8mo ago

[dead]

palata 8mo ago

"But we cannot be profitable if we don't do surveillance". I don't believe that surveillance capitalism was created by governments "bullying" companies. I am curious about how far a project like Confer can go, but I wouldn't be surprised if it couldn't be profitable (because it is designed to not do surveillance).

brandensilva 8mo ago

I'm afraid that all the foxes are in the chicken coop at this point. Which is a nice way to say we're probably hosed until the people rise up and force change. It does seem like Anthropic is at least the only big AI company that is pursuing some safety discussions around their technology like not using it for surveillance and war for killing people autonomously. This administration is wielding a power that was meant to serve Americans in the past by forcing companies to conform to an agenda that is anti-democratic/freedom/constitutional. I'm just not confident they will stand against this administration when the going gets tough but let's see what happens this Friday I guess.

libertine 8mo ago
What makes you think there are any chickens left? Because it looks like it's all foxes. This administration got elected because tech billionaires invested in it. They were right behind them, and I mean literally. Isn't it possible that this was all deliberately done by tech companies to get access to data and consolidate their position, and secure public funding?
- voidhorse 8mo ago
  This. Most of them weren't exactly bullied. Outside of having a military, several tech companies are probably more powerful than nation states at this point, and I think some of them realize this. As long as a complete slip into barbarism is still not fully on the table, nations need the data that tech companies have more or less entirely captured and established a complete hegemony around at this point. They also rely directly on their products. I guess the EU is starting to wake up to how problematic this is.
- GiorgioG 8mo ago
  Let's not pretend this started with this administration. I'm not pointing any fingers at any one party or politician, but this is nothing new: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(1970–2013) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... 'By the late 1990s ECHELON was reportedly capable of monitoring up to 90% of all internet traffic. According to the BBC in May 2001, however, "The US Government still refused to admit that Echelon even exists."'

Havoc 8mo ago

Bully? It’s their goddamn business model.

ozgung 8mo ago

Is there really a clear separation between tech companies and surveillance/military or is it wishful thinking? I've recently rewatched Steve Blanks's "Secret History of Silicon Valley" talk [1]. Until 80's most SV startups seem to be financed directly by the military. This changes only after the rise of private VC. But for strategic technologies like internet, search, communication, social media and finally AI, they still have to have control over them. "User Data" everyone talks about is not limited with consumer behavior. The real money is on how we think and act as citizens of this world. The whole world wouldn't give all their data to an app named Uncle Sam or CCP. But we are happy to give the same information to Facebook, Google, ChatGPT or TikTok. They are free and they don't want our money. [1] https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?si=ZfRNgpqJOP6hVLKC https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?si=ZfRNgpqJOP6hVLKC

aleph_minus_one 8mo ago
> Is there really a clear separation between tech companies and surveillance/military or is it wishful thinking? The separation was never completely clear, but there was a time when the separation was much more marked. The reason was simply that programming culture at that time was more "chaotic", "anti-authoritarian", "open-source"/"free software" (in the erstwhile understanding of this being just a part of a bigger movement, not in the verbal sense), "radical privacy" (cypherpunk), "hacking" (including the legally dubious aspects) etc. These values were quite opposite to those of the military-industrial or surveillance-industrial complex, so there was a lot of friction between the cultures of the tech companies at that time and these complexes, which made it not particularly attractive for these sides to partner - if only because of the frictions between the sides that were to overcome.
rainingmonkey 8mo ago
"Surveillance Valley" is another excellent book about the tech industry's military roots.

duxup 8mo ago

But many tech companies try to track everyone for their own reasons ... They are surveillance companies. That's part of the problem.

InfinityByTen 8mo ago
This is an underrated observation. The companies built surveillance as a competitive advantage. The "system" rewards bolstering this advantage.
- j45 8mo ago
  Distributing surveillance id the data of your usage is extremely difference from understanding how your app is being used.
kgwxd 8mo ago
We don't grant companies extraordinary powers to arrest/imprison/kill for any reason they see fit. The government involvement problem is VERY separate from the greedy company problem. And the government is supposed to be working for the people, we don't like being spied on, they should be making laws to prevent it, not looking to get in on it. There's even a document they're supposed to be referring to for guidance on such issues.
- j45 8mo ago
  Increasingly with our digital identities we are citizens of private companies that don’t need governance it’s all or nothing.
YetAnotherNick 8mo ago
There is a difference between tracking with real name, vs tracking with unique identifier for showing better ads. I really don't understand how people in HN think that tracking for showing personalized short videos is same as sending names of people who searched for particular term to police.
- 8mo ago

jaunt7632 8mo ago

[dead]

doodaddy 8mo ago

I’ve supported the EFF for a long time. I think what they do and stand for is important. But I can’t help but feel utterly disillusioned with all of it now. Each press release just reads as naïve to me. At one point it felt like there was a real possibility that their viewpoint would be thoughtfully discussed and actioned on. But now…I don’t know. The lack of notable “wind” doesn’t help and all the trends just don’t give me confidence that the tide will turn any time soon. Maybe the part that makes me most sad is that for those of us who have been doing this for, well, our entire lives, it’s just not the outcome any of us envisioned but it’s the outcome that (almost) all of us have been party to even if in some small way.

malwrar 8mo ago
It feels like tech freedom politics really died sometime in the net neutrality and SOPA days. Hurts to watch as this failure scenario plays out.

shimman 8mo ago

Tech companies should be bullied into paying more taxes and being broken up.

everdrive 8mo ago

They cannot be bullied into surveillance if they have nothing worthwhile to provide. As long as surveillance capitalism exists, there will at best be a risk that the government could abuse the surveillance data. Laws and regulations can help, but even the best laws and regulations could be skirted, amended, or simply repealed by a future administration.

1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago

Surveillance as a Service SaaS

we_have_options 8mo ago

And what I'm wondering is why SecDev H thinks that forcing Anthropic to integrate their AI with the country's mass surveillance and autonomous drone strike technology is a winning move for him. "Ok, if you don't do what I tell you then you HAVE to connect the autonomous AI engine that only you understand and control, I repeat you HAVE to connect your golem to my control systems." Like a bank robber threatening to hand the gun to the teller if they don't put the money in the bag. Like SecDev H "open claw"-ing the entire US military.

UncleOxidant 8mo ago
Exactly this. Just another example of how Hegseth is completely unqualified and way out of his depth.

MetroWind 8mo ago

OR... maybe they want to do it.

_slih 8mo ago

once the infrastructure exists, it gets repurposed. age verification becomes watchlist screening becomes facial similarity scoring against political figures. scope creep is the feature.

know-how 8mo ago

[dead]