5 ms·

I'll repaste a comment I made elsewhere, that seems applicable here: If a company is approached by any spooky three-letter agency, the higher-ups of that compa

by clicks 13y ago

I'll repaste a comment I made elsewhere, that seems applicable here: If a company is approached by any spooky three-letter agency, the higher-ups of that company could possibly interpret that as a validation that they've made it 'big' -- and furthermore, they could see in that offer a security that three-letter agencies then have an interest in seeing the company continue to scale up and succeed (because of limited funds, three-lettered agencies can't just go merrily creating tools that work properly with the 'next facebook' every other 9 months... and furthermore, there's no knowing if they'll come across resistance when they solicit 'direct access' to the next company. Also, NSA would have just loved it if China and Russia was a big user of Facebook... so I can even imagine them doing something subtle to try to make that a reality). Sadly, I do not see this trend ending anytime soon.

bhauer 13y ago
Indeed. That gives new emphasis to the notion of regulatory capture, wherein the regulatory agency has a vested interest in the continued success of its regulated clients. In this scenario, in a manner of speaking, the agency is seeking to be "captured," so that it can continue to leech lifeblood from the host.
- declan 13y ago
  See also, from my earlier article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/how-the-u.s-forces-net-firms-to-cooperate-on-surveillance/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/how-the-u.s-fo... "The government has a lot of leverage," including contracts and licenses, said a representative for an Internet company. "There is a lot of pressure from them. Nobody is willingly going into this."
  - tippytop 13y ago
    The reciprocal, my Internet company will spy on my users in exchange for a government contract, wouldn't be called leverage, it'd be called corruption.
- northwest 13y ago
  > ... wherein the regulatory agency has a vested interest in the continued success of its regulated clients. The logical consequence for the consumer would then be to boycott these clients.
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    That might be logical, by some chain of reasoning, but it's not reasonable. To boycott them would mean to disconnect yourself from the internet -- impractical for many. Even if you live in a privileged zone with smaller ISPs available, your data still transits through these companies. By cutting yourself off, you forego giving them some miniscule amount of money, but you also disconnect yourself from news and the ability to communicate and organize with others who feel the same.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by clicks 13y ago

bhauer 13y ago

Indeed. That gives new emphasis to the notion of regulatory capture, wherein the regulatory agency has a vested interest in the continued success of its regulated clients. In this scenario, in a manner of speaking, the agency is seeking to be "captured," so that it can continue to leech lifeblood from the host.

declan 13y ago
See also, from my earlier article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/how-the-u.s-forces-net-firms-to-cooperate-on-surveillance/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/how-the-u.s-fo... "The government has a lot of leverage," including contracts and licenses, said a representative for an Internet company. "There is a lot of pressure from them. Nobody is willingly going into this."
- tippytop 13y ago
  The reciprocal, my Internet company will spy on my users in exchange for a government contract, wouldn't be called leverage, it'd be called corruption.
northwest 13y ago
> ... wherein the regulatory agency has a vested interest in the continued success of its regulated clients. The logical consequence for the consumer would then be to boycott these clients.
- dangrossman 13y ago
  That might be logical, by some chain of reasoning, but it's not reasonable. To boycott them would mean to disconnect yourself from the internet -- impractical for many. Even if you live in a privileged zone with smaller ISPs available, your data still transits through these companies. By cutting yourself off, you forego giving them some miniscule amount of money, but you also disconnect yourself from news and the ability to communicate and organize with others who feel the same.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]