8 ms·
Zuckerberg, Nadella and Other Executives Ask Senate to Restrain NSA Spying
- Nux 12y agoAwww, good guys Zuckerberg and Nadella. I wonder what they're really after.
- astrange 12y agoWe're only playing into their secret plan to not spy on us.
- cryoshon 12y agoI really wish the people with a lot of money from the tech sector would be more passionate and incendiary when they address the government regarding reeling in the NSA. Unveiled political threats such as funding candidates who oppose incumbents siding with the NSA would also be quite helpful, I think. You can easily write off a citizen (read: serf) with passion and aggressive language to lobby the government, but it's much harder to ignore a superstar who is funding your campaign and has a large and powerful corporation.
- rayiner 12y agoYou act as if citizens (read: serfs) are on the same side, being ignored by a senate just looking for campaign donations. This time last year, a majority of Americans supported the NSA program: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190638738/pew-majority-of-americans-support-nsa-phone-tracking http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190638738/pew.... Only this year did the polls shift: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/20/poll-nsa-surveillance/4638551 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/20/poll-..., with a significant but not overwhelming 53-40 against the program. And as always, keep in mind that these are polls of the public--actual voters skew older and more conservative. A better way to frame the situation that doesn't distort it all to hell might be that the tech sector educating Congress about the economic issues might help tip a consensus that's still pretty deadlocked in the public when you look at actual voters.
- BrokenEnso 12y agoI'd imagine a banner at the top of Facebook for eveyone geoloc in US say to vote for reps that don't support an unchecked US intel would get noticed by everyone on the hill.
- JTon 12y agoPlaying the devils advocate here: I'd imagine even a superstar takes on a sizeable amount of risk when they oppose a large and powerful organization (i.e. NSA). An individual is an easy target regardless of wealth, no? I think a wealthy individual must be just as passionate and willing to fight as his/her less wealthy counterpart
- ProAm 12y agoDont expect a person's opinion to change when their paycheck depends on them having said opinion.
- MichaelAO 12y agoLink to actual letter: https://www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/USAFreedomAct https://www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/USAFreedomAct
- peterkelly 12y agoI notice they got Drew Houston rather than Condoleezza Rice to sign on behalf of Dropbox.
- justizin 12y agoOh, they didn't just go to the press and declare Ed Snowden a traitor for hurting their business?
- pkinsky 12y agoNo, that was a certain well known VC.
- jjoonathan 12y agoI thought that was Marc Andreessen?
- justizin 12y agoI was snarking at Andreesen, who is being a baby.
- girvo 12y agoThe funniest part about what he said, is "Bawww we'll lose business overseas because they know they're being spied on!" No shit, sherlock! You should lose business if your government gets caught doing shit that foreign people don't like. Your government is allowed to do that, yes, but you're not allowed to complain if we foreigners decide that we don't want to do business with companies based in a country that gives zero shits about our right to privacy. It's all pretty hilarious tbh
- spankalee 12y agoBecause the headline might be misleading by leaving this out, it's not just Zuckerberg and Nadella. The full list: Tim Armstrong, AOL Tim Cook, Apple Drew Houston, Dropbox Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Larry Page, Google Jeff Weiner, LinkedIn Dick Costolo, Twitter Satya Nadella, Microsoft Marissa Mayer, Yahoo!
- aiiane 12y agoYeah, I found it a bit odd the specific selections of both CEOs and companies named - especially given that the CEOs in the headline, the named companies in the article, and the named CEOs in the article are all different sets.
- tlrobinson 12y agoAlmost identical to the list of PRISM companies.
- jmgrosen 12y agoI don't think that's a coincidence -- they didn't want to participate, and now that it's out there, it's hurting their bottom line.
- yuhong 12y agoI don't think these companies even know they were helping it.
- zevyoura 12y agoOf course the companies knew about PRISM (though not under that name); they had to implement services for it. Other NSA more pervasive initiatives, like tapping into fiber, were not known.
- adventured 12y ago"A lawyer representing the National Security Agency at a Wednesday hearing revealed tech companies were fully aware of the agency’s widespread Internet surveillance programs, contradicting outraged statements that have echoed across Silicon Valley since Edward Snowden’s first leaks came to light." http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/nsa-reveals-silicon-valley-knew-about-mass-internet-spying/ http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/nsa-reveals-silicon-valley...
- ethana 12y agoHurting their bottom lines? I thought it'd be sooner.
- abraxasz 12y ago"None of the executives who signed the letter are scheduled to appear at today’s Senate hearing. Witnesses on the agenda include Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole, NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett and FBI Deputy Director Mark Giuliano." The lineup they have is hilarious. It probably went something like: - [senate] James, do you think we should end mass surveillance - [Cole] No - [senate] Dick, whaddya think? - [Ledgett] Nope, it's allright - [senate] Ok, Mark? - [Giuliano] Meh, nah, I think we're fine - [senate] Well then, after extensive consultation with all interested parties, blablabla (I know, I know, it's way overboard, I don't believe it myself, but that's the first thing that came to mind when I read the quote, and I had a good laugh)
- higherpurpose 12y agoThat's exactly what's going to happen. In fact, they already held a very similar hearing right after the Snowden leaks, and it was all about praising the NSA.
- znowi 12y ago> The lineup they have is hilarious. The request by the PRISM companies is just as hilarious as the hearing. A good show for the public to "commemorate" the one-year anniversary of the Snowden leaks.
- dontmindifido 12y agoAs someone not from the US, it's always interesting to see the focus on US rights with the rest of the world almost an afterthought. In my mind it seems a lot less altruistic viewed under that lens.
- Zigurd 12y agoGoogle, meanwhile, actually acts to restore trust by putting our emails out of the reach of orders by secret courts. As long as laws have secret interpretations and security agencies have exclusive access to rubber-stamp secret courts, the laws can't be trusted.
- afarrell 12y agoThe problem with only changing the law is that you are still going to have federal judges issuing secret rulings "rubber stamping" data collection. The real problem isn't that the courts are rubber stamps, its that nobody checks the courts work. Yes, I know the FISA court approves the vast majority of requests. Most judges approve the vast majority of requests. That doesn't mean they are rubber stamps; It means that DAs and investigators normally work hard to get their ducks in a row before asking for a warrant. These judges are human, so they make mistakes issuing warrants. Investigators are human, so they make mistakes (or "mistakes") staying within the bounds of the warrant. Then a defendant get brought in and their defense attorney sees the evidence against their client was improperly gathered. They file a Motion to Suppress and the judge or investigator is rebuked. If denied suppression, they can file an appeal and it can go to as far as the Supreme Court. Why is the FISA court a rubber stamp? Nobody checks their work. Why does nobody check their work? There are no suppression hearings on data gathered via PRISM because the data isn't used as evidence for a prosecution.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Aqueous 12y agoTranslation: Zuckerberg and Nadella score points for pretending to give a shit about NSA surveillance and users' privacy, and all of us are callously manipulated into giving them props. Conveniently, especially for Zuckerberg, the narrative implied here exactly counteracts the previous narrative implied about their companies: that they do not, in fact, give a shit. And all they had to do was write a letter!
- rhizome 12y agoI'm guessing $120MM didn't get lodged against the USA Freedumb Act.
- thetigris 12y agoI would rather give all my info to the Government than to these corporate giants. Since when did they start caring about their users ? Until they change themselves, what's the point, oh right, CEO's have to be in news what else will they do in their free time!
- adventured 12y agoThe difference is, you have a right to not use Facebook, Google, Bing, Skype, WhatsApp, Twitter, iTunes, Gmail, Hotmail, et al. And there are countless ways to evade Google's ability to ad track you, easily in fact. The government is not asking permission, and you have no rights as far as privacy is concerned these days. None at all. You are automatically opted in. You may not opt out. What exactly has Google ever done to you or anybody? The US Government sprayed black communities in St. Louis with radiation in the 1950s to see what would happen. Let's see you top that one example, and I've got a hundred more. What has Facebook done to you? The US Government has killed thousands of civilians around the world in the last decade via droning. The US Government invaded Iraq under false pretenses just so the military industrial complex could have a sandbox to play in. The US Government was responsible for allowing slavery for a century, preventing women from voting, and preventing blacks from voting. The US Government systematically killed off Native American tribes. The US Government killed hundreds of thousands in the illegal Vietnam war. The US Government used depleted uranium shells in the Gulf War, causing thousands to fall sick with Gulf War Syndrome; and then they tried to cover it all up and deny those vets treatment. The US Government has been committing coups in South America for decades. The US Government nuked Japan twice, all just to indirectly threaten Russia. Your turn to list examples of all the evil these big bad companies have committed.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- fdsary 12y agoThis is bull shit, isn't it? These companies business models are based on surveillance, but people don't understand that. What people do understand is when gov's do surveil them. But it's the same. I say encrypt your communications, and pull the rug under both Zuck and the NSA.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- aaronchriscohen 12y agoThe only reason Big Tech is against the NSA now is because their most valuable customers are eyeing foreign competitors based in countries with actual privacy laws. I talk to clients all the time who want their data stored in Luxembourg or Switzerland or Iceland. MSFT, Google, FB, et al. were totally content to sell out the American public and aide the creation of a surveillance state as long as they profited from it.
- ed_blackburn 12y agoPresumably if/when American companies start loosing business to companies based in more perceived more liberal and pro-privacy focused administrations i.e. Germany, then the US govt. may take this seriously. Similarly the UK economy is a services based, if organisations can't trust UK based services because of spying then the UK govt. may re-consider wire-tapping. As always. Money. Talks.
- xkarga00 12y agoThat's really funny