So, people still don't think they should prioritize getting their services from outside of EU, rather than US? It seems to me that despite all the laws and the Constitution, the government can still pretty much force any company do whatever it wants, "legally" or extra-legally (hello Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard!).
Post-Snowden, US companies don't deserve a second chance - at least not while the US government doesn't seem to have any remorse about mass surveillance and its abuse of power, and has no serious intention of reforming itself.
> So, people still don't think they should prioritize getting their services from outside of EU, rather than US? It seems to me that despite all the laws and the Constitution, the government can still pretty much force any company do whatever it wants ....
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I imagine that most other countries' governments would do at least what the U.S. Government does, if only they had the tools.
I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil?
Besides, your argument is rather off-topic. The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
EDIT: I'd prefer somebody to tell me why other governments are intrinsically more evil, instead of silently downvoting me.
> I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil?
I didn't say anything about morality, nor about evil. As Rayiner has correctly noted more than once, in international affairs the world is ultimately a Hobbesian state of nature. Morality plays a definite but limited role --- especially when different people adhere to drastically different views of what's "moral" or "evil"(cf., e.g., Crimea), in which case the stronger side will win.
The brute fact is that a government that daintily claims to be morally "above" gathering intelligence about potential threats is one that likely won't be in power for long. By and large, the people in charge of other governments tend to know this. Apropos of that, note that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits only unreasonable searches by the government.
----------------
> The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie. Other governments might not have particular tools now. If history is any guide, they will, soon enough (cf., e.g., the nuclear-weapons programs of various countries).
1)You stated that other country's governments would do at least as much surveillance. While not technically illegal, it certainly doesn't play out well for any system supposedly operating under the umbrella term "democracy". That's why I call it evil. That's something KGB/Stasi would do, and people don't exactly hold them to very high esteem?
2) I thought that everybody knows by now that the current surveillance apparatus is not for "potential security threats". If anybody who refuses to spy on their own people(e.g. telecoms) is considered a potential threat(whether it actually threatens national security or not), then, voila! We have arrived at a totalitarian government. The term threat has become very loose in its definition lately.
3)Correct, life isn't a snapshot. However, for the time being, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. That's why companies need to be flexible and agile, and mitigate future threats on their livelihood e.g. switch to services in more friendly locales.
4) Still though. What makes you say that the governments of other countries would do at least what the US government is doing? That seems to imply some moral superiority that goes something like this - "we have this technology and we are spying on people, which is illegal, but other countries would do much worse things, given the opportunity". So it's corrupt, but somehow still above everyone else?
Post-Snowden, US companies don't deserve a second chance - at least not while the US government doesn't seem to have any remorse about mass surveillance and its abuse of power, and has no serious intention of reforming itself.