3 ms·

> The thing is nobody has to comply with 1509 summons, DHS has to go to court to enforce it. You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decis

> The thing is nobody has to comply with 1509 summons, DHS has to go to court to enforce it. You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply, while there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons. Especially given the current administration's proven record of taking retaliation against anyone who stands in their way. If you want companies to behave in the interest of the general public, you need to create an incentive structure that supports that.

buzer 1mo ago
Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? From what I understand e.g. Stored Communications Act might allow suing T-Mobile in this case, at least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration. And possibly even government under 18 U.S.C. §2712. Of course then it's up to judge to determine if the request was valid or not.
- coldtea 1mo ago
  >Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? And lose time and money, which they also likely don't have?
  - buzer 1mo ago
    Both SCA and 18 U.S.C. §2712 can grant punitive damages and attorney fees. So there might be lawyers who would take it on contingency, and in this kind of case some non-profit could also have interest in litigating the issue. And as this is something that has already happened there isn't much else the person in question can do. Third parties always have option to just disclose information to whoever asks it, at most you can hold them accountable for it later if it was unlawful. And what accountability exactly means depends on what laws exists. If you want some real accountability for the people/companies involved in these kinds of decisions then get Congress to pass such laws (however impossible it might be).
  - xg15 1mo ago
    If you go by this logic, you can forget the entire legal system. You might as well immediately close all lawsuits and declare the party the winner that has more capital. It doesn't (yet) work that way.
    - coldtea 1mo ago
      >Ιf you go by this logic, you can forget the entire legal system. I did. I'll still file a lawsuit if I'm forced to, but I gave up in the idea that it functions in any singificant way as to not declare the winner the party that has more capital.
- thayne 1mo ago
  > least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration But binding arbitration is pretty standard in terms of service.
  - buzer 1mo ago
    It is, but T-Mobile's terms at least used to allow you to opt out from what I remember.
michaelt 1mo ago
> there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons Ehhh, seems to me a cloud provider that wants to back up my documents, communications, photos, passkeys etc has a very strong business case for ensuring the data is as safe with them as they would be in my own home.
- loloquwowndueo 1mo ago
  Sweet summer child.
- thayne 1mo ago
  They have an incentive to maintain a perception that it is at least as safe with them as any of their competitors. That isn't quite the same thing as having an incentive to protect your privacy.
mmooss 1mo ago
The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in one basket or the other. Humans don't biologically change to amoral creatures when they pull into the office parking lot (despite theories to the contrary or attempts to encourage it), nor are they absolved of human responsibility when doing things for which they are paid.
- schubidubiduba 1mo ago
  The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss.
  - parineum 1mo ago
    > The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Citation needed.
    - fwn 1mo ago
      If this area of research interests you, look into Thompsons "Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations" from 2017 or Bovens ur-werk "The Quest for Responsibility" from 1998. Diffusion of moral responsibility in complex organizations is not a new observation. The Wikipedia article leans a bit too much on the psychology and not on the organizational design / decision architecture, but is still a good entry point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
- hackyhacky 1mo ago
ajross 1mo ago
> You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply From the space between the lines in the article, it seems pretty clear that Google denied the request, and its employees were the source for the claim being reported at all. Yes, they absolutely could be evil in principle. They appear to have been good in practice. And in times of extremis like this, maybe it's important to call out those little victories and find allies where you can. Even if you happen to be a HN Apple stan.
hobo123 1mo ago
You could say that the difference between "don't be evil" and having no backbone at all is quite a strong incentive (and strongly influences your brand valuation), but once your reputation is in the gutter, maybe it doesn't matter anymore.

buzer 1mo ago

Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? From what I understand e.g. Stored Communications Act might allow suing T-Mobile in this case, at least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration. And possibly even government under 18 U.S.C. §2712. Of course then it's up to judge to determine if the request was valid or not.

coldtea 1mo ago
>Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? And lose time and money, which they also likely don't have?
- buzer 1mo ago
  Both SCA and 18 U.S.C. §2712 can grant punitive damages and attorney fees. So there might be lawyers who would take it on contingency, and in this kind of case some non-profit could also have interest in litigating the issue. And as this is something that has already happened there isn't much else the person in question can do. Third parties always have option to just disclose information to whoever asks it, at most you can hold them accountable for it later if it was unlawful. And what accountability exactly means depends on what laws exists. If you want some real accountability for the people/companies involved in these kinds of decisions then get Congress to pass such laws (however impossible it might be).
- xg15 1mo ago
  If you go by this logic, you can forget the entire legal system. You might as well immediately close all lawsuits and declare the party the winner that has more capital. It doesn't (yet) work that way.
  - coldtea 1mo ago
    >Ιf you go by this logic, you can forget the entire legal system. I did. I'll still file a lawsuit if I'm forced to, but I gave up in the idea that it functions in any singificant way as to not declare the winner the party that has more capital.
thayne 1mo ago
> least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration But binding arbitration is pretty standard in terms of service.
- buzer 1mo ago
  It is, but T-Mobile's terms at least used to allow you to opt out from what I remember.

michaelt 1mo ago

> there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons Ehhh, seems to me a cloud provider that wants to back up my documents, communications, photos, passkeys etc has a very strong business case for ensuring the data is as safe with them as they would be in my own home.

loloquwowndueo 1mo ago
Sweet summer child.
thayne 1mo ago
They have an incentive to maintain a perception that it is at least as safe with them as any of their competitors. That isn't quite the same thing as having an incentive to protect your privacy.

mmooss 1mo ago

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in one basket or the other. Humans don't biologically change to amoral creatures when they pull into the office parking lot (despite theories to the contrary or attempts to encourage it), nor are they absolved of human responsibility when doing things for which they are paid.

schubidubiduba 1mo ago
The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss.
- parineum 1mo ago
  > The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Citation needed.
  - fwn 1mo ago
    If this area of research interests you, look into Thompsons "Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations" from 2017 or Bovens ur-werk "The Quest for Responsibility" from 1998. Diffusion of moral responsibility in complex organizations is not a new observation. The Wikipedia article leans a bit too much on the psychology and not on the organizational design / decision architecture, but is still a good entry point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
hackyhacky 1mo ago

ajross 1mo ago

> You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply From the space between the lines in the article, it seems pretty clear that Google denied the request, and its employees were the source for the claim being reported at all. Yes, they absolutely could be evil in principle. They appear to have been good in practice. And in times of extremis like this, maybe it's important to call out those little victories and find allies where you can. Even if you happen to be a HN Apple stan.

hobo123 1mo ago

You could say that the difference between "don't be evil" and having no backbone at all is quite a strong incentive (and strongly influences your brand valuation), but once your reputation is in the gutter, maybe it doesn't matter anymore.