4 ms·

> What I don't understand is why you blame Google for being forced They weren't forced. I linked to sources showing they voluntarily handed over the informatio

> What I don't understand is why you blame Google for being forced They weren't forced. I linked to sources showing they voluntarily handed over the information. There is no resistance. > Have you ever seen the interface that the police forces of many countries demanded be delivered No, but I'd imagine it looks a lot like the comprehensive information that Google provided without warrants in the first two links I provided. > Are you aware all Telcos, from AT&T to BT do the same, except 1000x bigger scale? Also terrible. Doesn't excuse Google. > Are you aware that an EU country > Are you aware that a US police officer These are states and agents of the state, which Google is not. Google also doesn't execute people in public hangings, but that doesn't excuse their actions as a company. Google unethically assists state actors. It's why they removed "Don't be evil" as their motto. They are not a force for good in the world, they are a company that exists to maximize shareholder value. The benevolent ideals you ascribe to the company are not based on the reality of their actions.

spwa4 7mo ago
So you're angry at Google ... because they fail to fight not just 1 country, but all countries' police forces on your behalf enough? I mean you even seem to agree they do fight them, just not enough to completely defeat them ... Ok then. Entirely reasonable position, that.
- text0404 7mo ago
  No, I'm pointing out that Google is a for-profit company that collaborates with governments. In the age of mass surveillance, we should dispense with idealistic notions of these companies somehow being forces for good and instead understand their motivations and modes of operation. Everything else is your words, not mine.
  - spwa4 7mo ago
    I was making an argument about Google specifically, compared to other companies, especially state monopolies and "ex-"state-monopolies, not about the abstract notion of what a company is. If your point is simply that companies can't entirely ignore the law and that makes them inherently evil ... Ex is between scare quotes because I don't believe for one second governments aren't currently both controlling these companies AND sabotaging their competition. Well, I'd say your anger is misdirected and should go towards governments and the law, not companies.

spwa4 7mo ago

So you're angry at Google ... because they fail to fight not just 1 country, but all countries' police forces on your behalf enough? I mean you even seem to agree they do fight them, just not enough to completely defeat them ... Ok then. Entirely reasonable position, that.

text0404 7mo ago
No, I'm pointing out that Google is a for-profit company that collaborates with governments. In the age of mass surveillance, we should dispense with idealistic notions of these companies somehow being forces for good and instead understand their motivations and modes of operation. Everything else is your words, not mine.
- spwa4 7mo ago
  I was making an argument about Google specifically, compared to other companies, especially state monopolies and "ex-"state-monopolies, not about the abstract notion of what a company is. If your point is simply that companies can't entirely ignore the law and that makes them inherently evil ... Ex is between scare quotes because I don't believe for one second governments aren't currently both controlling these companies AND sabotaging their competition. Well, I'd say your anger is misdirected and should go towards governments and the law, not companies.