6 ms·

"Both, but any Google executive aware of the abuses could have anonymously tipped off Wikileaks or some other journalist. None did." We do not know this and it

"Both, but any Google executive aware of the abuses could have anonymously tipped off Wikileaks or some other journalist. None did." We do not know this and it would be questionable if the risk associated with such an act would be worth it considering that Google can actually use its resources to move things in a legal way. (via courts, lobbying in Washington etc.) "To explain Google's behavior, classic diffusion of responsibility is all that is necessary. Without any such dissent, it's no surprise that the government abused its power." I remember Google protesting (SOPA) and actively pursuing privacy initiatives multiple times in the last years and even pull out of the Chinese market. They release detailled copyright removal reports: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ They let you take all your data out of all Google products: http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products They fight governments data requests in courts (sometimes successfully) and release strongly worded statements when they are allowed to. Suggesting that we ended up with an abusive goverment because Google slavishly followed orders seems unrealistic to me. "Snowden is a significant outlier... hiring policies are intended to prevent the hire of the kind of person who would do what he did. The scary thing is that Google's hiring practices achieve the same thing." Google as a company would arguably not exist anymore, if its developers/admins constantly leaked data. The survival of the NSA does not depend on public trust and a positive public image - Google does.

grandalf 13y ago
We do not know this and it would be questionable if the risk associated with such an act would be worth it considering that Google can actually use its resources to move things in a legal way. (via courts, lobbying in Washington etc.) Google's legal initiatives are largely just naked lobbying for its own corporate interest. SOPA in particular. Nothing wrong with this but it's a lot different than using its legal team to fight government abuses. Google is reasonably scared and chastened by Microsoft's massive antitrust battle, and Eric Schmidt pragmatically ramped up lobbying and philanthropy when he took the helm. They let you take all your data out of all Google products: http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products Do you think this removes it from the system that the NSA has access to? They fight governments data requests in courts (sometimes successfully) and release strongly worded statements when they are allowed to. Strongly worded PR statements while being 100% cooperative. My guess is that the statements are run by the NSA for approval before they are published. Suggesting that we ended up with an abusive goverment because Google slavishly followed orders seems unrealistic to me. I did not argue this. But it's a very slow and gradual slide into tyranny, and Google has done nothing to prevent the obvious abuses. I again point to the Government's treatment of Microsoft as a significant driver of Google's supplication. The survival of the NSA does not depend on public trust and a positive public image - Google does. Only when the information is kept secret does the NSA's survival not depend on public trust. I'd argue that the NSA depends more on public trust than Google, since Google's motives are very clear, at least insofar as the shareholders are concerned. The NSA is there to protect US interests which generally are not documented and are subject to the whims of both high level and low level officials.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "Google's legal initiatives are largely just naked lobbying for its own corporate interest. SOPA in particular.' This is where I stopped reading. I personally know all of the people at Google involved in doing SOPA, and you have literally no idea what you are talking about. You are talking about a group of people mostly from places like EFF, Creative Commons, and other wonderful orgs. They do it because they want to make the world better, don't want to see the internet censored, and because it's the right thing to do. Maybe you are too cynical and jaded to do something like that, but they aren't. Your opinions have zero basis in fact. (I read the rest, and it's equally as uninformed. You no nothing of what google has tried to do, done, or anything of the sort, be it related to the NSA or anything else. If Google puts out press releases, you call them self-interested, if they do it quietly, you never notice and think they are 100% cooperative. They are fucked either way).
  - grandalf 13y ago
    You are talking about a group of people mostly from places like EFF, Creative Commons, and other wonderful orgs. They do it because they want to make the world better, and because it's the right thing to do. Maybe you are too cynical and jaded to do something like that, but they aren't. Your opinions have zero basis in fact. There is a difference between the people Google has employed to do the work and the corporate strategy behind the work. I have no doubt that the people you describe are truly passionate and dedicated. But you don't see Google funding advocacy groups for initiatives that don't have a corresponding corporate benefit. Google's evolving stance on net neutrality is a case in point. An analogy would be a housing development firm supporting advocacy of home loans for the poor.
    - magicalist 13y ago
      > But you don't see Google funding advocacy groups for initiatives that don't have a corresponding corporate benefit. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2190617/Googles-Legalize-Love-Campaign-Pressures-Governments-on-Gay-Rights http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2190617/Googles-Legaliz...
    - 13y ago

grandalf 13y ago

We do not know this and it would be questionable if the risk associated with such an act would be worth it considering that Google can actually use its resources to move things in a legal way. (via courts, lobbying in Washington etc.) Google's legal initiatives are largely just naked lobbying for its own corporate interest. SOPA in particular. Nothing wrong with this but it's a lot different than using its legal team to fight government abuses. Google is reasonably scared and chastened by Microsoft's massive antitrust battle, and Eric Schmidt pragmatically ramped up lobbying and philanthropy when he took the helm. They let you take all your data out of all Google products: http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products http://www.dataliberation.org/takeout-products Do you think this removes it from the system that the NSA has access to? They fight governments data requests in courts (sometimes successfully) and release strongly worded statements when they are allowed to. Strongly worded PR statements while being 100% cooperative. My guess is that the statements are run by the NSA for approval before they are published. Suggesting that we ended up with an abusive goverment because Google slavishly followed orders seems unrealistic to me. I did not argue this. But it's a very slow and gradual slide into tyranny, and Google has done nothing to prevent the obvious abuses. I again point to the Government's treatment of Microsoft as a significant driver of Google's supplication. The survival of the NSA does not depend on public trust and a positive public image - Google does. Only when the information is kept secret does the NSA's survival not depend on public trust. I'd argue that the NSA depends more on public trust than Google, since Google's motives are very clear, at least insofar as the shareholders are concerned. The NSA is there to protect US interests which generally are not documented and are subject to the whims of both high level and low level officials.

DannyBee 13y ago
"Google's legal initiatives are largely just naked lobbying for its own corporate interest. SOPA in particular.' This is where I stopped reading. I personally know all of the people at Google involved in doing SOPA, and you have literally no idea what you are talking about. You are talking about a group of people mostly from places like EFF, Creative Commons, and other wonderful orgs. They do it because they want to make the world better, don't want to see the internet censored, and because it's the right thing to do. Maybe you are too cynical and jaded to do something like that, but they aren't. Your opinions have zero basis in fact. (I read the rest, and it's equally as uninformed. You no nothing of what google has tried to do, done, or anything of the sort, be it related to the NSA or anything else. If Google puts out press releases, you call them self-interested, if they do it quietly, you never notice and think they are 100% cooperative. They are fucked either way).
- grandalf 13y ago
  You are talking about a group of people mostly from places like EFF, Creative Commons, and other wonderful orgs. They do it because they want to make the world better, and because it's the right thing to do. Maybe you are too cynical and jaded to do something like that, but they aren't. Your opinions have zero basis in fact. There is a difference between the people Google has employed to do the work and the corporate strategy behind the work. I have no doubt that the people you describe are truly passionate and dedicated. But you don't see Google funding advocacy groups for initiatives that don't have a corresponding corporate benefit. Google's evolving stance on net neutrality is a case in point. An analogy would be a housing development firm supporting advocacy of home loans for the poor.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    > But you don't see Google funding advocacy groups for initiatives that don't have a corresponding corporate benefit. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2190617/Googles-Legalize-Love-Campaign-Pressures-Governments-on-Gay-Rights http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2190617/Googles-Legaliz...
  - 13y ago