> You are not breaking laws, nor breaking the spirit of the law I wasn't suggesting that either. Sidestepping is avoidance not evasion. > The laws have not be

> You are not breaking laws, nor breaking the spirit of the law I wasn't suggesting that either. Sidestepping is avoidance not evasion. > The laws have not been updated in light of these new privacy implications. ... the deliberately slow wheels of government to turn? So change the law. And speed up your justice system. Don't elect individuals who slow down progress deliberately. > you can both circumvent unjust laws and work to take those laws off the books. And fight the laws and its usage, which is what Google does. It was also the entity that disclosed the original order in this particular case, so that the person in question can also take some action if possible. It also publishes transparency reports and it was the first one to do that, which gives you an idea about how frequent usage of the unjust laws are so that you, as a community, has more information about what your government is doing. If I am not wrong, there have been 2 elections since the FISA was passed and the voting population of US was aware of the broad surveillance since the first election (Obama based some of his campaign on it). If he hadn't acted on it, then it should have become a point of debate in the reelection. But it was celebrated on Hacker News as much as anywhere else, without a single mention of his inability of reducing the scope of such laws. So guess what? Overboard surveillance didn't seem to be a priority for most of the people here and Google has been more transparent and more vigilant about it since longer than the PRISM episode. The gist is that it is easy to transfer blame in this case, but the root cause it solely the astoundingly broad laws and the undoubted trust that voters put in the current government that used them instead of removing them as it had promised.