5 ms·
So if they hadn't signed the agreement, the Coast Guard would have been denied access to the vessel? It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US
by markdown 13y ago
So if they hadn't signed the agreement, the Coast Guard would have been denied access to the vessel?
It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US.
- VladRussian2 13y agoyes, i kind of imagine how the Chinese bistro nearby (less than a mile from Google) wouldn't let, say, a city inspector in until s/he signs NDA/etc... I guess the bistro owner is just not aware about such an idea :)
- rhizome 13y agoAllowing inspectors into the restaurant is a requirement of the license to operate it.
- TallGuyShort 13y agoThe same is true of newly constructed buildings and, I would imagine, commercial barges.
- ars 13y agoI agree. Since when does the Coast Guard need to ask permission to inspect a vessel? But, maybe they would need a warrant, and by getting permission they avoid that? Don't know.
- rhizome 13y agoThe vessel is already in the country/state, so the 4th Amendment applies.
- chrislipa 13y agoYou'd think so, but unfortunately, our government disagrees. https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-co...
- rhizome 13y agoI'm not seeing much in that description of the border exception that would touch this vessel, which appears to be something akin to "at port," much less a vessel controlled by a company with as many legal resources as Google. It would be a shitshow if the USCG just stormed in there.
- yardie 13y agoAsk any boater how any interaction with the Coast Guard goes. They wield an incredible amount of power in search and seizure and centuries of court precedence. Unlike the TSA they are pros at security theater, even if you think you are right you are almost always wrong. The barge is not in a lake, it's in a bay and border rules take precedence.
- zyxley 13y agoMy guess would be that the Google head honcho on-site asked nicely and offered some sort of carrot (e.g. "we will tell you our other spooky floating facility plans in advance"), and that the Coast Guard employee was "required" to sign the NDA by a boss who liked the deal.
- rhizome 13y agoI'll guess the converse, that it was the lead investigators who put on their best manners.
- saraid216 13y agoI love HN. Coast Guard denied access to Google warehouse: corporations have too much power. NSA suspected of gaining access to Google warehouse: government has too much power.
- znowi 13y agoI think the truth is somewhere in the middle. In particular that government and corporations are working together at high level, while maintaining opposing stance in public. When you're a huge corp like Google that operates around the globe, you can't help but to rub elbows with the government - collaborate and make concessions, if necessary (e.g. PRISM). The sad part is that the lack of privacy is advantageous to both government and corporations. One get better ad targeting, another tracking and control. So they're one team on this. The dispute is who and how will get to use the data.
- markdown 13y agoI wasn't comparing the power a corporation has to the power wielded by the government; It was more corporation vs person. I don't think I'd have the power to tell the US Coast Guard to fuck off if they approached me as I sped across the harbour in my little speedboat.
- gngeal 13y agoFalse dichotomy. Both of them can have too much power simultaneously! :)
- TallGuyShort 13y agoIf both corporations and the government act outside or above the law, then they both have too much power, right? (Note that I don't actually believe Google has violated any laws here - just commenting on the perception).