5 ms·

We really need more companies (and those in control of those companies) that stand up for their customers this same way. A public company would not have been ab

We really need more companies (and those in control of those companies) that stand up for their customers this same way. A public company would not have been able to make this play, so keep that in mind when you are making decisions about where to put your data.

wyck 13y ago
I think Qwest Communications was a public company when they refused to comply with the NSA.
- lnanek2 13y ago
  Didn't they die after that due to the government canceling contracts with them?
  - lymie 13y ago
    Didn't Eric Schmidt lose his discount NASA airplane fuel when Google's lawyers started fighting their gag orders in court?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    They've been merged into CenturyLink, but I doubt that's because of losing some government contracts. Those would be a drop in the bucket for an ILEC. USA telco consolidation is inexorable, for anti-consumer reasons. Actually it's only a matter of time before VZN acquires CenturyLink and then spins its less profitable/deadwood pieces back out to private equity firms. Much money will be made by executives, and much wailing to PUCs will be heard when service craters.
- CaptainZapp 13y ago
  And if I recall correctly their ex-CEO is now in jail on allegedly trumped up charges. If true this is utterly despicable by the government. Alas, I'm not surprised.
  - 65_196_127_226 13y ago
    Is insider trading a trumped-up charge? I didn't hear the internet outrage about Enron's CFO being indicted for the same charge.
    - gknoy 13y ago
      If I recall right, the reason it was considered insider trading was that he had published numbers expecting a contract from the government. When he chose to stand up for principles, the contact never landed, which made those predictions false. I'd appreciate a clearer explanation of this, but last time I read about it, it really did seem like the loss of the contract was out of revenge, and that his prosecution would never have happened had he caved to the requests which he felt were unconscionable.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        The problem is he dumped the stock after it became clear (to him) they weren't getting the contracts, but before he told anyone else.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Insider trading by itself is not a trumped up charge - probably none of the charges possible by the US Code are by itself. What makes it trumped up is the particular circumstance - the details of the case. And the details look definitely very fishy.
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    he was recently released.
antocv 13y ago
> A public company would not have been able to make this play, Isnt it funny to hear that a public company would not have been able to do something when it is about something good for its consumers and ultimately its country and citizens, but when it is something extremely bad like compliance, obedience and evilness then they suddenly can and are free to do it. There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. It is like Obama, when it comes to do something good then his hands are tied, when it comes to break laws and shit on constitution to extend mass surveillance or to wage war and drone kill civilians then his hands are not tied. Now, lets hear some more excuses for the way the most successful tech-companies have acted, their hands were tied, they would face huge repercussions, they didnt know better, they only meant to comply with law and so on. The truth is, they dont have democracy in interest, or their consumers best in interest, in fact you as consumer and user for their services and these companies are diametrically opposed and for your best you should consider them enemies.
- misnome 13y ago
  > There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. Try being CEO of Google, Facebook, or Microsoft, and suddenly deciding to close the entire business, and see how far you get before being removed.
  - antocv 13y ago
    There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Lavabit founder finally is allowed to speak about this. It is enough if you threaten to shut down the business to make it known to the G-men that you wont play (the totalitarian) ball. We stopped SOPA/PIPA just with a partial blackout. But these companies didnt make a squeek. They are accomplices.
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      > There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Yeah, but not if it's an empty gesture that doesn't change anything. Any CEO of Google both wouldn't be able to shut it down rather than comply, and would be removed for trying. It would accomplish nothing.

wyck 13y ago

I think Qwest Communications was a public company when they refused to comply with the NSA.

lnanek2 13y ago
Didn't they die after that due to the government canceling contracts with them?
- lymie 13y ago
  Didn't Eric Schmidt lose his discount NASA airplane fuel when Google's lawyers started fighting their gag orders in court?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  They've been merged into CenturyLink, but I doubt that's because of losing some government contracts. Those would be a drop in the bucket for an ILEC. USA telco consolidation is inexorable, for anti-consumer reasons. Actually it's only a matter of time before VZN acquires CenturyLink and then spins its less profitable/deadwood pieces back out to private equity firms. Much money will be made by executives, and much wailing to PUCs will be heard when service craters.
CaptainZapp 13y ago
And if I recall correctly their ex-CEO is now in jail on allegedly trumped up charges. If true this is utterly despicable by the government. Alas, I'm not surprised.
- 65_196_127_226 13y ago
  Is insider trading a trumped-up charge? I didn't hear the internet outrage about Enron's CFO being indicted for the same charge.
  - gknoy 13y ago
    If I recall right, the reason it was considered insider trading was that he had published numbers expecting a contract from the government. When he chose to stand up for principles, the contact never landed, which made those predictions false. I'd appreciate a clearer explanation of this, but last time I read about it, it really did seem like the loss of the contract was out of revenge, and that his prosecution would never have happened had he caved to the requests which he felt were unconscionable.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      The problem is he dumped the stock after it became clear (to him) they weren't getting the contracts, but before he told anyone else.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Insider trading by itself is not a trumped up charge - probably none of the charges possible by the US Code are by itself. What makes it trumped up is the particular circumstance - the details of the case. And the details look definitely very fishy.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  he was recently released.

antocv 13y ago

> A public company would not have been able to make this play, Isnt it funny to hear that a public company would not have been able to do something when it is about something good for its consumers and ultimately its country and citizens, but when it is something extremely bad like compliance, obedience and evilness then they suddenly can and are free to do it. There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. It is like Obama, when it comes to do something good then his hands are tied, when it comes to break laws and shit on constitution to extend mass surveillance or to wage war and drone kill civilians then his hands are not tied. Now, lets hear some more excuses for the way the most successful tech-companies have acted, their hands were tied, they would face huge repercussions, they didnt know better, they only meant to comply with law and so on. The truth is, they dont have democracy in interest, or their consumers best in interest, in fact you as consumer and user for their services and these companies are diametrically opposed and for your best you should consider them enemies.

misnome 13y ago
> There is nothing stopping Google, Facebook or Microsoft to act as Lavabit did. Nothing at all except for their own cowardice, malicious intents and disregard for laws and their costumers. Try being CEO of Google, Facebook, or Microsoft, and suddenly deciding to close the entire business, and see how far you get before being removed.
- antocv 13y ago
  There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Lavabit founder finally is allowed to speak about this. It is enough if you threaten to shut down the business to make it known to the G-men that you wont play (the totalitarian) ball. We stopped SOPA/PIPA just with a partial blackout. But these companies didnt make a squeek. They are accomplices.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    > There are some causes that are worth being removed as CEO for. Yeah, but not if it's an empty gesture that doesn't change anything. Any CEO of Google both wouldn't be able to shut it down rather than comply, and would be removed for trying. It would accomplish nothing.