5 ms·

I doubt you can "join" PRISM. You're forced in.

by umsm 13y ago

breakupapp 13y ago
It definitely has a cool name though. Reminds me of Justice League.
cinquemb 13y ago
"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships. It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradiction to the ideals of what the prize is named after, but I digress. There is always a choice to be made…
- herge 13y ago
  > potential short term corporate hardships You mean prison time, like what happened to Joseph Nacchio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Notice I did not say "potential short term individual hardships", regardless of what he was charged and convicted of (which wasn't failure to comply with NSA orders of which he says are in retaliation of)…
    - psbp 13y ago
      So you're completely disregarding the possibility that Qwest was dismantled and Nacchio was just a pawn?
- bad_user 13y ago
  > There is always a choice to be made… No, there isn't, in case you haven't been paying attention. When it comes to NSA, there is no "they" anymore. In the eyes of NSA, a company is not a whole, but rather a group of individuals that can face jail time, individually. And yes, "legally" speaking, companies and individuals supposedly can fight back, but they are coerced into doing it in secret. Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off. So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    So Yahoo! "fighting back" apparently was apart of the smoke and mirrors, since apparently they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state? >Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off. Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats? Can't wait to see the headlines on Bloomberg for that… >So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard. If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…
    - bandushrew 13y ago
      "they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state?" Yep. I guarantee that as well as taking the process through the courts, they have also been obeying the existing law. They have no choice. "Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats?" or child molesters, or rapists, or tax fraudsters, or anything that can be found and has the smallest chance of sticking. There is a pretty good history of this, including Assange, and the CEO of some telco whose name I forget. It is a pretty standard way for Intelligence departmentsto get what they want, see the history of intelligence companies. The NSA have access to all our communications, finding something to use as blackmail isn't going to be hard. "If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…" we honestly do. The actions of the state are moving beyond the common understanding of the social contract.
- qq66 13y ago
  There's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated. Many tech companies didn't even raise "arms" against the NSA invasion -- they in fact built systems to make the NSA's surveillance easier than they even needed to. In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider). Let's not mix this up with Obama's Nobel Prize. I don't think anyone outside the Nobel Committee, including even Michelle Obama, thought it was an appropriate selection at the time or today.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    >There's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated. But submitting oneself the court system of the state to overturn the the secret rule of the state, on face value, looks like an exercise in futility… And like I said below, being rewarded a golden star from the EFF to stick upon Marrissa's Fridge while remaining complicit and receive praise from those in the tech community for "trying", is quite amusing to watch. They could have been much more effective publicly denouncing such secret order and face the ramifications as a multinational corporation… you know, like HSBC's slap on the wrist for laundering drug money that the state says is always going to the terrorists. >In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider). Or you pull a snowden and watch the global state trip all over its own laws and the sovereignty of other nations to try and catch you.
ig1 13y ago
Both Twitter and Apple (Steve Jobs era) refused to participate.
- psbp 13y ago
  Any source on that Steve Jobs speculation? It makes more sense that Apple's lack of attractive cloud/internet service presence delayed their eventual adoption.

I doubt you can "join" PRISM. You're forced in.

by umsm 13y ago

I doubt you can "join" PRISM. You're forced in.

breakupapp 13y ago

It definitely has a cool name though. Reminds me of Justice League.

cinquemb 13y ago

"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any potential short term corporate hardships. It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradiction to the ideals of what the prize is named after, but I digress. There is always a choice to be made…

herge 13y ago
> potential short term corporate hardships You mean prison time, like what happened to Joseph Nacchio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Notice I did not say "potential short term individual hardships", regardless of what he was charged and convicted of (which wasn't failure to comply with NSA orders of which he says are in retaliation of)…
  - psbp 13y ago
    So you're completely disregarding the possibility that Qwest was dismantled and Nacchio was just a pawn?
bad_user 13y ago
> There is always a choice to be made… No, there isn't, in case you haven't been paying attention. When it comes to NSA, there is no "they" anymore. In the eyes of NSA, a company is not a whole, but rather a group of individuals that can face jail time, individually. And yes, "legally" speaking, companies and individuals supposedly can fight back, but they are coerced into doing it in secret. Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off. So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  So Yahoo! "fighting back" apparently was apart of the smoke and mirrors, since apparently they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state? >Doing otherwise can lead to the labeling of individuals as national security threats or even potential terrorists, after which all gloves are off. Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats? Can't wait to see the headlines on Bloomberg for that… >So let me ask you this - if the populace at large doesn't do anything, why do you expect a company of a few thousands to be up in arms about it? That's a really screwed double standard. If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    "they have no choice what so ever except to bend over and take it from the surveillance state?" Yep. I guarantee that as well as taking the process through the courts, they have also been obeying the existing law. They have no choice. "Are you suggesting that if in the event of a CEO or shareholders of multinational corporations deciding not to comply with secret orders then they will be labeled by the state to the public as terrorists and national security threats?" or child molesters, or rapists, or tax fraudsters, or anything that can be found and has the smallest chance of sticking. There is a pretty good history of this, including Assange, and the CEO of some telco whose name I forget. It is a pretty standard way for Intelligence departmentsto get what they want, see the history of intelligence companies. The NSA have access to all our communications, finding something to use as blackmail isn't going to be hard. "If one needs the populace at large in order to discern whether the actions undertaken by the state or any of it's outsourced entities are reprehensible or not, they we have bigger problems at hand…" we honestly do. The actions of the state are moving beyond the common understanding of the social contract.
qq66 13y ago
There's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated. Many tech companies didn't even raise "arms" against the NSA invasion -- they in fact built systems to make the NSA's surveillance easier than they even needed to. In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider). Let's not mix this up with Obama's Nobel Prize. I don't think anyone outside the Nobel Committee, including even Michelle Obama, thought it was an appropriate selection at the time or today.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  >There's a huge difference between tail-waggingly complying with a government request, and fighting back with every method available until you are defeated. But submitting oneself the court system of the state to overturn the the secret rule of the state, on face value, looks like an exercise in futility… And like I said below, being rewarded a golden star from the EFF to stick upon Marrissa's Fridge while remaining complicit and receive praise from those in the tech community for "trying", is quite amusing to watch. They could have been much more effective publicly denouncing such secret order and face the ramifications as a multinational corporation… you know, like HSBC's slap on the wrist for laundering drug money that the state says is always going to the terrorists. >In a society governed by laws, and enforced with guns, you don't have a choice about complying with laws, unless you want to be hauled off and put in a dank cell (some admirable dissidents do that, but nobody should expect that level of commitment from their email provider). Or you pull a snowden and watch the global state trip all over its own laws and the sovereignty of other nations to try and catch you.

ig1 13y ago

Both Twitter and Apple (Steve Jobs era) refused to participate.

psbp 13y ago
Any source on that Steve Jobs speculation? It makes more sense that Apple's lack of attractive cloud/internet service presence delayed their eventual adoption.