3 ms·

All mainstream modern technology companies are in a no win tragic situation. They are accountable to the state which overrides their ability to make any kind of

All mainstream modern technology companies are in a no win tragic situation. They are accountable to the state which overrides their ability to make any kind of actual independent decisions when the interests of the state are at stake. Going against this would be an exercise in futility and you may well end up in prison for doing so. Getting angry at them for what they are forced at gunpoint to do is just wasted energy, though I do agree with seeking alternatives free from the influence of the state and not patronising companies that are forced to operate in those interests purely from the perspective of pragmatism. All they can do is stick to the letter of the law. I think the harder the state clamps down and the more totalitarian it becomes, the more black market alternatives for mainstream services will come into being and the more pressure there will be for a truly free parallel economy to flourish.

clarry 12y ago
> All mainstream modern technology companies are in a no win tragic situation. Actually the big companies (and to a lesser degree other significant entities like Wikipedia) that essentially hold the keys to the Internet and have the money -- if anyone, they are in a position to change things. They have tremendous power. Think civil disobedience. Corporate disobedience? There are many legal as well as illegal things these corps could do to flip the bird at the state. And the result might be that they get heard, unlike all the EFF campaigners and individuals who can only complain on Internet forums.
- etherael 12y ago
  > Think civil disobedience. Corporate disobedience? Not a great approach, see Lavabit and associated businesses. Or that telco executive who was imprisoned (Qwest, thanks rwallace) on trumped up charges due to not playing ball with the national security apparatus to the requisite degree of submission. You paint a target on your back taking this path in a big way, it's simply not worth the risk to insulate people from the consequences of their own political decisions.
- rwallace 12y ago
  A company called Qwest tried that, and its CEO ended up in prison on trumped-up charges of insider trading. Calls for other people to become martyrs for your favorite cause don't have a lot of moral authority in my book.
  - gte910h 12y ago
    > ended up in prison on trumped-up charges of insider trading Or on charges that fit the statute, but are over-criminalized. We have way too many laws. Everyone is violating them, so drawing the ire of criminal prosecutors = jail term.
danieldk 12y ago
All they can do is stick to the letter of the law. That's not all that they can do. Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, et al. are some of the most powerful entities in the US besides the oil industry. They matter to the US economy, and for that reason they are clearly in a position to influence government decisions. This has both positive and negative outcomes. Since trust in terms of privacy is important to Google et al., they are (probably) trying to prevent eavesdropping. This can be witnessed in Google's push to push SSL everywhere, their increased transparency with respect to information requests, and Facebook's lashing out at Obama over domestic spying. On the other hand, some outcomes are detrimental as a result of a fierce battle between the technology companies, resulting e.g. in blocking of patent reform.
- etherael 12y ago
  Influencing government decisions is typically done by lobbying, handing more power to the state by way of smothering them in funds. Yes you might get your pet project some extra attention, but it's likely that the funds you use to accomplish that objective will be used for heinous ends elsewhere. It's much like negotiating with terrorists from a game theoretic perspective. Other alternatives are massive public awareness campaigns with regards to any given issue, but these appear to be losing potency as it becomes clear that basically everything the state is doing is broken from the perspective of citizens in some way, and they are not much interested in "fixing it" as it is working perfectly from the perspective of political parasites. The only unalloyed good that can probably be done is financially contributing to improved security and other technological innovations that directly thwart the interests of the state. Doing so more advances the interests of their potential free market competitors than their own however.
  - politician 12y ago
    Consider the massive power wielded by SpaceX with respect to the purchase of Russian rocket components. They prevailed by applying the right amount of pressure at the opportune time (viz a viz Ukraine). In principle, this accomplishment could be replicated.

clarry 12y ago

> All mainstream modern technology companies are in a no win tragic situation. Actually the big companies (and to a lesser degree other significant entities like Wikipedia) that essentially hold the keys to the Internet and have the money -- if anyone, they are in a position to change things. They have tremendous power. Think civil disobedience. Corporate disobedience? There are many legal as well as illegal things these corps could do to flip the bird at the state. And the result might be that they get heard, unlike all the EFF campaigners and individuals who can only complain on Internet forums.

etherael 12y ago
> Think civil disobedience. Corporate disobedience? Not a great approach, see Lavabit and associated businesses. Or that telco executive who was imprisoned (Qwest, thanks rwallace) on trumped up charges due to not playing ball with the national security apparatus to the requisite degree of submission. You paint a target on your back taking this path in a big way, it's simply not worth the risk to insulate people from the consequences of their own political decisions.
rwallace 12y ago
A company called Qwest tried that, and its CEO ended up in prison on trumped-up charges of insider trading. Calls for other people to become martyrs for your favorite cause don't have a lot of moral authority in my book.
- gte910h 12y ago
  > ended up in prison on trumped-up charges of insider trading Or on charges that fit the statute, but are over-criminalized. We have way too many laws. Everyone is violating them, so drawing the ire of criminal prosecutors = jail term.

danieldk 12y ago

All they can do is stick to the letter of the law. That's not all that they can do. Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, et al. are some of the most powerful entities in the US besides the oil industry. They matter to the US economy, and for that reason they are clearly in a position to influence government decisions. This has both positive and negative outcomes. Since trust in terms of privacy is important to Google et al., they are (probably) trying to prevent eavesdropping. This can be witnessed in Google's push to push SSL everywhere, their increased transparency with respect to information requests, and Facebook's lashing out at Obama over domestic spying. On the other hand, some outcomes are detrimental as a result of a fierce battle between the technology companies, resulting e.g. in blocking of patent reform.

etherael 12y ago
Influencing government decisions is typically done by lobbying, handing more power to the state by way of smothering them in funds. Yes you might get your pet project some extra attention, but it's likely that the funds you use to accomplish that objective will be used for heinous ends elsewhere. It's much like negotiating with terrorists from a game theoretic perspective. Other alternatives are massive public awareness campaigns with regards to any given issue, but these appear to be losing potency as it becomes clear that basically everything the state is doing is broken from the perspective of citizens in some way, and they are not much interested in "fixing it" as it is working perfectly from the perspective of political parasites. The only unalloyed good that can probably be done is financially contributing to improved security and other technological innovations that directly thwart the interests of the state. Doing so more advances the interests of their potential free market competitors than their own however.
- politician 12y ago
  Consider the massive power wielded by SpaceX with respect to the purchase of Russian rocket components. They prevailed by applying the right amount of pressure at the opportune time (viz a viz Ukraine). In principle, this accomplishment could be replicated.