6 ms·

Weren't these requests, which Yahoo objected to, intended to stay secret, by the wishes of the government? Consider if Yahoo refused to honor the requests, and

Weren't these requests, which Yahoo objected to, intended to stay secret, by the wishes of the government? Consider if Yahoo refused to honor the requests, and began accruing the fines. Presumably, if they didn't pay the huge bill for their fines, what would happen? Surely, $250k/day would rack up fast... As I see it, eventually Yahoo would rack up such a bill that they couldn't afford it, and any collection of the fee by the government would force Yahoo to close its doors. At that point, surely they'd have to reveal something to the general public about said requests, and the fines, and everything else going on behind the scenes...

melvinmt 12y ago
"As I see it, eventually Yahoo would rack up such a bill that they couldn't afford it, and any collection of the fee by the government would force Yahoo to close its doors." Yahoo is about to get $20bn+ in cash in about 2 weeks, so they can hold out these fines for about 80,000 days.
- joshavant 12y ago
  Fair enough. But it still stands, couldn't Yahoo ignore it? What's the worst thing the government could do to Yahoo that would go unnoticed by the public, if Yahoo didn't comply?
  - AVTizzle 12y ago
    That's an expensive gamble, with probable jail time somewhere in there for the responsible execs.
    - joshavant 12y ago
      I find it very hard to believe any government agency could take Marissa Mayer or anyone on the board off to jail with no reason and not cause a huge stir...
      - plorkyeran 12y ago
        I find it very easy to believe that the NSA could find a crime which Marissa Mayer (or anyone else) is guilty of and carries jail time as a punishment.
        idlewords 12y ago
        If you want to break out the black helicopters, note that it would have to be the FBI that did this.
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        No. The NSA would find the crime and communicate it to the FBI. But if your point is that the NSA have no law enforcement role, that's salient. Also: check your mail WRT http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm I've posted a few fixes to that (excellent piece BTW) from my gmail account.
        idlewords 12y ago
        I will never check my email. Mwahahahaha!
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        http://i.imgur.com/NgmuHGn.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NgmuHGn.jpg
- tjohns 12y ago
  If Yahoo continued to resist, I'm sure the government would just gradually increase the amount until they had no choice but to comply. These kinds of fines are usually issued for contempt of court. Judges don't take kindly to parties that try to ignore a court order, which would include writing off a court imposed fine as a cost of business. There's few things more terrifying than an angry judge with full power of contempt. There's no principle of proportionality, which gives judges almost unlimited authority. See Chadwick v Janecka (3rd Cir. 2002) as an example.
  - randomfool 12y ago
    But Yahoo is a public company and the ones they are punishing is the shareholders. At what point does the government need to tell shareholders that they are siphoning cash?
benologist 12y ago
I was thinking about that because it seemed like a cost they could just afford to ignore ($91m/yr), this was probably not the limit of the penalties they could have faced.
- ams6110 12y ago
  At some point people would have started being thrown in jail and that's when resistance usually ends.
  - skue 12y ago
    Right, but what would that look like? Would the FISA court jail a citizen without a trial, and can you imagine a FISA judge wanting to make that call, knowing that their decision will soon become public? Because once someone is prosecuted the U.S. govt would really have difficulty enforcing silence. It's one thing to force a company to be silent about surveillance, it's quite another to force individuals to be silent about being jailed. I'd like to think we haven't gone so far off the tracks that the first amendment wouldn't ultimately triumph in that case.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      It's called 'disappeared' and we're close.
      - idlewords 12y ago
        Watch what you say. Final warning.
    - dijit 12y ago
      it's not so cut and dry, first they discredit you. then they say you did something illegal and you're immoral. then you appear like you're lashing out at a government- trying to blame them instead of atoning for past transgressions.
    - amirmc 12y ago
monsterix 12y ago
I have a question: Can the NSA/the coercing party be reverse fined at $500k/day by Yahoo (i.e by an organization) for some reasons in similar vein?
- otakucode 12y ago
  Probably... but in order to bring any lawsuit against the US government (presuming they don't pay... which they wouldn't), the US government has to grant you permission to sue them. So chances are that debt would go nowhere.
  - privong 12y ago
    > (presuming they don't pay... which they wouldn't) If they did, it would just come out of the pockets of taxpayers anyways.
    - monsterix 12y ago
      That's probably one more way to rile up things further and gather attention from the silent _useless_ majority. Just sayin' it!
baddox 12y ago
> Presumably, if they didn't pay the huge bill for their fines, what would happen? It's easy to think of shady secret things the government could do to coerce Yahoo! in to either complying or paying. But at the end of the day, there's always people with guns.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  But at the end of the day, there's always people with guns. I think the point of the OP is that "people with guns" get to be pretty hard to hide at larger scales.
  - otakucode 12y ago
    Luckily companies keep the number of people with actual decision-making power to a very, very small group. Only threatening 1 or 2 people would probably be necessary.
  - baddox 12y ago
    If the other methods failed, why try to hide the guns? Just spin it as though it's in the interest of the public. Governments do that all the time.
lern_too_spel 12y ago
Over the course of a year, that's equivalent to employing 300 engineers. For a company the size of Yahoo, that would be pretty easy to hide.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  That's an interesting comparison, but it's still a pretty big hit. Profits (net income) over the past four quarters were $311 million, the fines would have eaten nearly a third of that, $91.25 million. For 2008 the percentage may well have been higher.
  - lern_too_spel 12y ago
    For internet companies, profits are nearly meaningless. Profits are just a financial game these companies play with Wall Street, moving investments from one quarter or year to another by playing around with amortization and other financial tricks to hit EPS targets, a metric that only makes sense for Coca-Colas and GEs. Revenue is what matters, and the $7.2 billion in revenue Yahoo generated in 2008 leaves plenty of room to hide $90 million over four quarterly earnings reports.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      While financial games are a significant issue, I wouldn't discount profit entirely. Looking at the components of cost-of-revenues will give you some idea of how easy that money is. It's actually a fairly interesting point on reflection. I look at it as metabolic efficiency. Note that YHOO's profit margins are fairly high as well.
      - lern_too_spel 12y ago
        I would discount profit entirely, especially if you are in a growing market. Focusing on profit will make you lose out to other companies that are focusing on growth. In a few years, that other company is going to be dominant in that market and will be able to turn on the profit faucet to help them apply the same idea to another market. Bezos and Schmidt, in particular, have spoken publicly about this business strategy several times. It is the reason companies like Amazon and Netflix can report negative earnings but maintain sky-high valuations.
xtrasmart 12y ago
they would just withdraw the money appropriate the company sell it off and install their security amongst employees. i think I have seen it somewhere, hightway interdiction. I am sure that they have a way to do whatever they want. nevermind bombing contries that refuse to give up controls to energy resources or are controlling flow of those. like um Syria or Ukraine.
Shivetya 12y ago
it would not be long before they would find a way to put the executives in jail. I do not doubt for one minute they would use other government agencies to intimidate, the IRS chief amongst them. Not much will change until the people in Washington are changed and changed regularly. the system is engineered to protect those in office and they are very good at manipulating the public into helping them maintain that dominance; namely bills to supposedly prevent money in politics - except it really only blocks money for views that don't support their views.
xtrasmart 12y ago
NATO should be destroyed with furious anger and righteous punishment.

melvinmt 12y ago

"As I see it, eventually Yahoo would rack up such a bill that they couldn't afford it, and any collection of the fee by the government would force Yahoo to close its doors." Yahoo is about to get $20bn+ in cash in about 2 weeks, so they can hold out these fines for about 80,000 days.

joshavant 12y ago
Fair enough. But it still stands, couldn't Yahoo ignore it? What's the worst thing the government could do to Yahoo that would go unnoticed by the public, if Yahoo didn't comply?
- AVTizzle 12y ago
  That's an expensive gamble, with probable jail time somewhere in there for the responsible execs.
  - joshavant 12y ago
    I find it very hard to believe any government agency could take Marissa Mayer or anyone on the board off to jail with no reason and not cause a huge stir...
    - plorkyeran 12y ago
      I find it very easy to believe that the NSA could find a crime which Marissa Mayer (or anyone else) is guilty of and carries jail time as a punishment.
      - idlewords 12y ago
        If you want to break out the black helicopters, note that it would have to be the FBI that did this.
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        No. The NSA would find the crime and communicate it to the FBI. But if your point is that the NSA have no law enforcement role, that's salient. Also: check your mail WRT http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm I've posted a few fixes to that (excellent piece BTW) from my gmail account.
        idlewords 12y ago
        I will never check my email. Mwahahahaha!
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        http://i.imgur.com/NgmuHGn.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NgmuHGn.jpg
tjohns 12y ago
If Yahoo continued to resist, I'm sure the government would just gradually increase the amount until they had no choice but to comply. These kinds of fines are usually issued for contempt of court. Judges don't take kindly to parties that try to ignore a court order, which would include writing off a court imposed fine as a cost of business. There's few things more terrifying than an angry judge with full power of contempt. There's no principle of proportionality, which gives judges almost unlimited authority. See Chadwick v Janecka (3rd Cir. 2002) as an example.
- randomfool 12y ago
  But Yahoo is a public company and the ones they are punishing is the shareholders. At what point does the government need to tell shareholders that they are siphoning cash?

benologist 12y ago

I was thinking about that because it seemed like a cost they could just afford to ignore ($91m/yr), this was probably not the limit of the penalties they could have faced.

ams6110 12y ago
At some point people would have started being thrown in jail and that's when resistance usually ends.
- skue 12y ago
  Right, but what would that look like? Would the FISA court jail a citizen without a trial, and can you imagine a FISA judge wanting to make that call, knowing that their decision will soon become public? Because once someone is prosecuted the U.S. govt would really have difficulty enforcing silence. It's one thing to force a company to be silent about surveillance, it's quite another to force individuals to be silent about being jailed. I'd like to think we haven't gone so far off the tracks that the first amendment wouldn't ultimately triumph in that case.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    It's called 'disappeared' and we're close.
    - idlewords 12y ago
      Watch what you say. Final warning.
  - dijit 12y ago
    it's not so cut and dry, first they discredit you. then they say you did something illegal and you're immoral. then you appear like you're lashing out at a government- trying to blame them instead of atoning for past transgressions.
  - amirmc 12y ago

monsterix 12y ago

I have a question: Can the NSA/the coercing party be reverse fined at $500k/day by Yahoo (i.e by an organization) for some reasons in similar vein?

otakucode 12y ago
Probably... but in order to bring any lawsuit against the US government (presuming they don't pay... which they wouldn't), the US government has to grant you permission to sue them. So chances are that debt would go nowhere.
- privong 12y ago
  > (presuming they don't pay... which they wouldn't) If they did, it would just come out of the pockets of taxpayers anyways.
  - monsterix 12y ago
    That's probably one more way to rile up things further and gather attention from the silent _useless_ majority. Just sayin' it!

baddox 12y ago

> Presumably, if they didn't pay the huge bill for their fines, what would happen? It's easy to think of shady secret things the government could do to coerce Yahoo! in to either complying or paying. But at the end of the day, there's always people with guns.

nitrogen 12y ago
But at the end of the day, there's always people with guns. I think the point of the OP is that "people with guns" get to be pretty hard to hide at larger scales.
- otakucode 12y ago
  Luckily companies keep the number of people with actual decision-making power to a very, very small group. Only threatening 1 or 2 people would probably be necessary.
- baddox 12y ago
  If the other methods failed, why try to hide the guns? Just spin it as though it's in the interest of the public. Governments do that all the time.

lern_too_spel 12y ago

Over the course of a year, that's equivalent to employing 300 engineers. For a company the size of Yahoo, that would be pretty easy to hide.

dredmorbius 12y ago
That's an interesting comparison, but it's still a pretty big hit. Profits (net income) over the past four quarters were $311 million, the fines would have eaten nearly a third of that, $91.25 million. For 2008 the percentage may well have been higher.
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  For internet companies, profits are nearly meaningless. Profits are just a financial game these companies play with Wall Street, moving investments from one quarter or year to another by playing around with amortization and other financial tricks to hit EPS targets, a metric that only makes sense for Coca-Colas and GEs. Revenue is what matters, and the $7.2 billion in revenue Yahoo generated in 2008 leaves plenty of room to hide $90 million over four quarterly earnings reports.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    While financial games are a significant issue, I wouldn't discount profit entirely. Looking at the components of cost-of-revenues will give you some idea of how easy that money is. It's actually a fairly interesting point on reflection. I look at it as metabolic efficiency. Note that YHOO's profit margins are fairly high as well.
    - lern_too_spel 12y ago
      I would discount profit entirely, especially if you are in a growing market. Focusing on profit will make you lose out to other companies that are focusing on growth. In a few years, that other company is going to be dominant in that market and will be able to turn on the profit faucet to help them apply the same idea to another market. Bezos and Schmidt, in particular, have spoken publicly about this business strategy several times. It is the reason companies like Amazon and Netflix can report negative earnings but maintain sky-high valuations.

xtrasmart 12y ago

they would just withdraw the money appropriate the company sell it off and install their security amongst employees. i think I have seen it somewhere, hightway interdiction. I am sure that they have a way to do whatever they want. nevermind bombing contries that refuse to give up controls to energy resources or are controlling flow of those. like um Syria or Ukraine.

Shivetya 12y ago

it would not be long before they would find a way to put the executives in jail. I do not doubt for one minute they would use other government agencies to intimidate, the IRS chief amongst them. Not much will change until the people in Washington are changed and changed regularly. the system is engineered to protect those in office and they are very good at manipulating the public into helping them maintain that dominance; namely bills to supposedly prevent money in politics - except it really only blocks money for views that don't support their views.

xtrasmart 12y ago

NATO should be destroyed with furious anger and righteous punishment.