isn't the whole premise that the Big Companies actually control the government? "They threaten the full weight of the US government's wraith and then tie every order up with classifications and gag orders."
full weight? You mean like a small fine ? That's what happened to Wells Fargo. The govt . seems really angry about it, but what can they really do to a corp that is considered an entity?
Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds.
It's so important that these leaks go public for two critical reasons:
1) with that type of financial regulatory environment for public companies, the only way to create incentives for that type of consumer protection play is when it has monetary consequences if they do nothing (customers shutting down their accounts)
2) court docs from an earlier Yahoo trial in a secret court were already released when the NSA requested a huge trove of emails and Yahoo challenged it. I read the judges ruling and the TLDR is that the judge said the customers will never know their email is being read so how can you claim that a privacy violation has occurred?
The twisted logic here is that there's no damage to the customer/company as long as the intrusion is conducted in total secrecy.
So that's why Yahoo is so willing to fold here. This is what they are dealing with.
Side note: Imagine the same logic was applied to police a search warrant that allowed police to enter hundreds of houses, a type of warrant that could never be challenged by these homeowners defence attorneys. "They'll never know police broke into their house and went through all of their drawers and personal belongings. They'll come home the next day and everything will seem exactly. the same. So what claim to privacy violation could do they have?"
The need for secrecy in FISA courts goes well beyond protecting state secrets like NSA tech. This type of judicial rationalization would never withstand scrutiny in open courts which is why total secrecy is the key.
> Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds.
Will this meme never die on HN? There is an obvious counter-example: Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.
The idea that "maximizing shareholder value" is some sort of inescapable Faustian bargain is just not supported by the facts. People who run corporations might choose to act unethically, in order to maximize a certain outcome, but they are not forced to do so by the mere fact of running a for-profit corporation.
To the extent there is a structural problem in public corporations, it is one of executive incentive, not shareholder obligation.
> Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.
The FBI went public with the case, not Apple... and the warrant was signed by a public criminal courts judge not a FISA court. That's a critical difference. There are no examples of successful challenges to NSLs, don't downplay the seriousness of doing so.
"Going public" is not really an option for the stuff we're talking about (as the Yahoo case I mentioned made clear, the whole warrant is predicated on secrecy ). If they do they could face serious financial penalties or face their CEOs going to jail where yes shareholder value will take a hit. The markets are very sensitive to large lawsuit liability and CEO changes.
So I don't see how you could challenge these laws as a public corporation without knowing full well you will damage the share value.
Their obligation to maintaining the stock value is only part of the issue here. You're expecting these businesses to be heroic martyrs when the state has stacked the chips extremely high against them. There's no question who is responsible for this mess.
Yet the US is on track to vote in another president whose primary national security strategy on her website is to expand NSA power and increase domestic and foreign intelligence gathering.
> Yet the US is on track to vote in another president whose primary national security strategy on her website is to expand NSA power and increase domestic and foreign intelligence gathering.
> > Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds.
> Will this meme never die on HN? There is an obvious counter-example: Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.
This is a poor example to use to disprove the claim; Apple used the FBI encounter to prove to customers that they were tough on security, a component of their value proposition to a segment of the customer base.
>I read the judges ruling and the TLDR is that the judge said the customers will never know their email is being read so how can you claim that a privacy violation has occurred?
What?! That's like saying my home wasn't actually burgled until I arrive home to see that it was, absolutely ridiculous
> the TLDR is that the judge said the customers will never know their email is being read so how can you claim that a privacy violation has occurred?
Really? A judge really said that? So if I place a camera in my neighbors' bathroom, and they never find out about it, everything's okay? Does it work with other crimes? If I steal millions from a company, but they never figure it out because their accounting department is sub-par, then I'm fine??
Centralised powers have capabilities, but also weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and Yahoo in particular is an exceptionally vulnerable technology company.
Companies can influence specific laws, and sometimes work in concert to achieve specific aims (see the totalitarian plutonomic pact, a/k/a TPP, backed by virtually every major infotech and comms company: Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Cisco, Facebook, Google, Intel, Microsoft, and Verizon, among others). But they're also vulnerable to specific legal threats, investigations, and withdrawals of contracts.
Where corporations influence governments most effectively is where the collective interests of political and industrial leaders is furthered. Where corporations successfully oppose governments is where the corporations have some level of political leverage, often through influence on key elements of local economy. Where government has influence over corporations is where there's little financial upside, and often only a vague and long-term benefit to the company, and where national security or mass popular interest plays strongly against the companies.
Yahoo had no leverage and considerable downside in trying to stand up against this order. The long-term downside to compliance is what's emerged here: disclosure of the project and a possible scuttling of Yahoo's announced purchase by Verizon. The best case for Yahoo without the Verizon takeover is that it's dead. With the takeover, some of the investors and executives recoup a small amount of the long-term loss of value in the company.
Yahoo had little to gain by fighting (it would have been executively decapitated and entered immediately into a likely fatal legal fight with the US Government), and something to gain by playing along.
Mayer took the easy, and unprincipled, decision to play along.
"These aren't trivial things..." Those are pretty trivial things, I mean JS is some people's first language. You can LEARN docker in couple days or less. Please correct me If I am wrong ?
full weight? You mean like a small fine ? That's what happened to Wells Fargo. The govt . seems really angry about it, but what can they really do to a corp that is considered an entity?