3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThere 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.
- lightbritefight 13y agoSo, you think the hyper publicity of a billion dollar tech darling CEO being ousted because he wanted to defend American liberties would accomplish nothing? The first thing it does is piss off one very wealthy person, whoever this CEO is. The second thing it does is piss off all of their very connected, wealthy friends. The third thing it does is serve as an egregious example of abuse to the public at large. Hmm. Wealthy, influential people with large public support? Nah, these are two things politicians don't concern themselves about.
- conanbatt 13y agoIm guessing that if the CEO of google had known of this, he has a big chip to fight it. If google threatened to shutdown or something, public outrage would destroy the NSA. But they don't have to get up to the CEO, they get the foreign sysadmin guy and tell him he cant tell his boss or his lawyer or he goes to jail and you got anything you want.
- jerf 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 customers." Emphasis re-arranged by me. May I remind you that Lavabit was shut down in reaction to actions taken by law enforcement, doing something that is almost certainly actually legal? "Regard for the law" here would seem to entail doing what they want. You appear to be simultaneously criticizing public companies for disregarding the law and not disregarding the law. (I object to its legality, but that does not change its legality.)
- jamiesonbecker 13y agoThe Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, right? The Fourth Amendment has a few things to say on this. I'd strongly advise you to actually read it -- it's only a few sentences -- and make your own determination on what you think it actually says. The FISC, authorized under the FISA, goes back to the 70's and was in reaction to the crimes that Nixon committed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Obama has taken that ball and run with it in a big way. Most transparent administration, ha. And even then, the FISC was and is itself contradictory to the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, etc,.... Guess which law wins? Assuming the Supreme Court agrees (and there's no guarantee they would.) So if you're ordered to do something awful, but you know that there is a higher law that trumps that law, you can simultaneously be disregarding "the law" whilst maintaining "regard" for the law. The key is: which law?
- tedunangst 13y ago? What does fisa have to do with lavabit?