Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Yahoo! Government Privacy United States

Yahoo CEO Says It Would Be Treason To Decline To Cooperate With the NSA 524

McGruber writes "During Wednesday's TechCrunch Disrupt conference, Marissa Meyer was asked what would happen if Yahoo simply declined to cooperate with the NSA. She replied 'Releasing classified information is treason. It generally lands you incarcerated.' Meyer also revealed that the 2007 lawsuit against the Patriot Act had been filed by Yahoo: 'I'm proud to be part of an organization that from the very beginning in 2007, with the NSA and FISA and PRISM, has been skeptical and has scrutinized those requests. In 2007 Yahoo filed a lawsuit against the new Patriot Act, parts of PRISM and FISA, we were the key plaintiff. A lot of people have wondered about that case and who it was. It was us ... we lost. The thing is, we lost and if you don't comply it's treason.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo CEO Says It Would Be Treason To Decline To Cooperate With the NSA

Comments Filter:
  • Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:10PM (#44835595)

    Patriotism?

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:12PM (#44835619) Homepage

    I hereby, as a prior serviceman who swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, pledge my rifle if Mr. Zuckerberg or Ms. Mayer, CEOs of Facebook and Yahoo respectively, come out with the truth of the extent of violation by the government against the privacy of the citizens of the United States of America. And herby pledge my rifle to the their defense, the defense of the Constitution and freedom of speech if either is arrested, charged and sentenced for treason in regards to the matter of the NSA's unconstitutional espionage on U.S. citizens. This is a reminder that the government is to serve the People, not the other way around.

    ***

    U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Government agencies not specifically sent this message that reading this, please

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:12PM (#44835623) Journal

    Either way it's a crap excuse.

    Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike. Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

  • Define Treason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gishzida ( 591028 ) <.gishzida. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:14PM (#44835645) Journal

    It's like asking "what do you mean by sex?" and yet... how is what Snowden did treason? All he has done is reveal the fact that the three branches of our government have basically said "we have the right to spy on you be cause we say so. and if you reveal the fact that we are violating your rights under the constitution they pull the magic "States Secrets" bunny out of the hat that waves its magic wand and gags those that would speak because it is treason... Um... How's that again? Where does it say that "State Secrets" trumps the constitution?

  • by iveygman ( 1303733 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:15PM (#44835649)
    She's not saying that it's treasonous not to cooperate, but rather lamenting the fact that they're being forced to comply.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:18PM (#44835675) Homepage

    Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

  • Really.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:20PM (#44835685) Homepage

    I think it was more so, that "Hey, we will arrest you. Crash your company. And or replace you. And we'll use illicit means to make it happen. Hell, we might just bump you off if you don't comply. Either way your company will comply, whether its you or the next guy."

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kaenneth ( 82978 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:25PM (#44835727) Journal

    I'm sure 'Aid and Comfort' can be stretched at least as far as 'interstate commerce' or 'general welfare'

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Man On Pink Corner ( 1089867 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:26PM (#44835753)

    We will always be at war with Terror, citizen.

  • by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:29PM (#44835787)

    The only entity who's defintion of Treason matters here is the USDOJ. When they jail you, you can scream "this is unjust! what I did isn't really treason!" all you like, but you're still in jail for treason.

  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:30PM (#44835803)
    We're approaching the end game of fascism in America. The country has had a good run but alas humans can't stop being humans and so this country will crumble under its weight like all countries before it.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:34PM (#44835837)

    Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

    Warrants are pretty much always requested in a confidential setting. Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear. The only thing that is different here is that the recipients of the warrant can't tell people they received it. Since they aren't the suspects, letting them inform other people that there is an investigation going on about them would interfere with what is a highly sensitive investigation. So you don't really have that right. The warrants are apparently legal and proper. Congress passed the laws authorizing them, and the courts have allowed them.

    Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:35PM (#44835845)

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  • by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:45PM (#44835917)
    That's the beauty of a war on ideology: anyone who opposes your ideological values can be branded a traitor.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kell Bengal ( 711123 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:46PM (#44835921)
    The problem here is that she may be totally right, under the interpretation of secret courts whose rulings we don't know. If she has been told in a secret court ruling that failure to comply with these requests constitutes treason (no matter how indefensible that ruling may be), then she is correct in asserting that such is the case. What is even worse is that she could not even tell us if that was the case.

    Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society: they remove the oversight of the populace in regulating the judicial process, and inevitably lead to abuse. A law you must obey but cannot be told the expectations of can be nothing but a tool of tyranny.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12, 2013 @07:49PM (#44835957)

    That "bimbo" as you put it with whatever infinite wisdom and technical expertise and responsibility you think you have, was talking pragmatically about the consequences Yahoo faces from the government's perspective. She wasn't speaking philosophically or even metaphorically. She probably knows just a little more about the issue than you do being that her company did fight it and lost. She probably is aware of what threats the NSA has made to Yahoo. So how about you give her some slack, or just show a bit of respect since it's not your neck that's on the line, and so far you haven't done much to fight the NSA either.

  • by Grog6 ( 85859 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @08:05PM (#44836097)

    He's one of the paid trolls, likely by the nsa.

    Nice, that.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @09:13PM (#44836405)
    We're talking about the federal government here. It no longer has to abide by this "Constitution you speak of, and if you invoke it in a court case, the feds can declare your argument "frivolous" and ignore it.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @09:38PM (#44836591) Homepage

    Sadly, the "giving them aid or comfort" part has been expanded to include virtually anything. Do you oppose NSA spying? Well, by doing so you "give aid and comfort" to terrorists since your opposition might disrupt something that could have thwarted the terrorists' plans. If you don't get in line like a good little patriot and keep your mouth quiet, you're a traitor.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eskarel ( 565631 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @09:55PM (#44836703)

    The warrants shouldn't be public. No warrants should actually be public. That's a horrendous breach of the privacy of the subject of the warrant. Imagine you get searched for kiddie porn and they don't find anything, releasing that warrant to the public would damage you horribly.

    The subject should have a right to see the warrant and the evidence used to issue it. We should know how many warrants are being filed, but never what they're actually for.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @10:06PM (#44836763)

    "Oer the laaaaaand of the sheep, and the hooooooome of the whipped"

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12, 2013 @10:21PM (#44836877)

    Sadly, the "giving them aid or comfort" part has been expanded to include virtually anything.

    Yeah, I would agree. It could even include the most obvious and blatant things...you know, like supplying arms to other countries.

    Yes Government, ain't it a bitch when that shoe just slips right on the other foot with ease. Tends to make the egg on your face a bit harder to wash off.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Keen Anthony ( 762006 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @10:50PM (#44837067)

    Not. There isn't a difference. You don't call someone a bimbo for saying or doing something stupid; you call them a bimbo when you have written them off as a stupid person. Furthermore, you don't use bimbo when referring to a stupid male, you use it when referring to a stupid female. And you use it to particularly address the fact that a stupid person is a woman. It is a label that has a legacy of having been used to deride and reduce women in the workplace for decades. Maybe you don't take offense to it, but that's on you. Civilized people do, and surely, there are words that offend you.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12, 2013 @11:01PM (#44837149)

    How can you not understand that bimbo is offensive in any context that has it applied to a woman?

    You are astonishingly ignorant if you don't know why you are so very wrong to call a successful woman like Marissa Meyer a bimbo.
    This ignorance is a sign of immaturity, hence that is why you are told to "grow up".

    I'll explain it for you.
    When someone says something that you think is wrong, then you say "That is wrong and this is why it is wrong."
    You can even say that the statement is "stupid" when it is made in disregard of reason and facts. Merely being wrong about something when there is some supporting evidence is not "stupid".
    If she made a number of un-reasoning and contra-factual statements (or actions) in varying contexts, then you could state that she is stupid.

    You used this phrase: "if she believes ..., then she's a dumbass bimbo". You used the word "bimbo" as a personal attack against a person, and "bimbo" falls into a group of pejoratives that are used as attacks against classes of people who are discriminated against in the same fashion that racial epithets are used.
    One thing that I am very certain of is that Marissa Meyer is neither vacuous nor stupid. Also. I suspect it's most unlikely that she's overly interested in her sex appeal, boys, and clothing which are among the connotations of bimbo.
    She made one statement that is probably wrong. However, it is quite possible that the government attorneys involved in the court case used the word treason regarding Yahoo's non-compliance with the various acts mentioned. I don't know; I wasn't there so I give her the benefit of the doubt. Were you there?
    The word "bimbo" simply" does not apply to her, so the only reason I can imagine someone would call her a bimbo is to demean her status as a person using an attack based on her gender.

    Now, as for this: "Too many people take too much god damn offense from words".
    There is a reason why people take offense against words. It is because so much offense has been done using words.

    I'm speaking as an old person who had a grandmother who could not legally vote when she was a young woman, whose mother was alive in a time when women were not allowed to purchase property in their own name without a husband's signature, when the only women allowed into law or medical school were exceptions granted to some influential person's daughter. The only jobs open to women were teaching and secretary unless dad owned the company.
    I have a wife with a sky-high IQ that could not attend the college of her choice because almost no science/technical schools accepted women at that time. And I'm well aware of the struggles my daughter had as a physics major from professors who refused to acknowledge she even existed.

    I know, I'm an old hippie going whine whine fuss moan about the bad old days way back when. But here's my point:
    Those days are not over, and they're not over because of immature assholes like you.
    Shut the fuck up until you have grown up.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @11:04PM (#44837167) Homepage Journal

    She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

    Right now at this time it appears that the best interests are served by complying.

    If you want corporations to fight, buy shares - get a group together to buy more shares, buy up all of the companies that run the infrastructure of the country, then use them to fight a proxy war with the current federal government.

    Vote with your wallets. Vote with organization. Just hope that the new masters (whomever ends up with controlling interest) are better than what we have now.

  • by Thruen ( 753567 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @11:05PM (#44837175)
    Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Somebody Is Using My ( 985418 ) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @11:49PM (#44837455) Homepage

    She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

    And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens.
    A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample.
    Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.

    Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.

    Now, in this particular case, Ms Mayer seems to indicate that she is opposed to the orders and - through her organization - has fought these orders in court. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against her and Yahoo decided to obey the court orders. And despite her poor choice of words regarding the reasoning for her actions following the court's decision (e.g., "treason"), I'd even be willing to believe that she - and Yahoo - will continue to "fight the good fight", for whatever reason. So it seems that this is not just a case of protecting Yahoo shareholders and that's a good thing..

    But the idea that the sole responsibility CEOs have is to their corporate masters needs to die.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 12, 2013 @11:56PM (#44837481)
    No you won't. You lost that war on September 11th, 2001, you just don't realise it.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JonBoy47 ( 2813759 ) on Friday September 13, 2013 @12:36AM (#44837685)
    The US has no equivalent of the UK's "Official Secrets Act". By definition, one cannot unlawfully disclose classified information unless one has been "indoctrinated" (i.e. granted a security clearance). A necessary part of that process is the signing of a non-disclosure agreement whereby one agrees to be held criminally liable for unauthorized disclosure. Absent such an NDA and security indocrination, the possession and/or dissemination of classified information is perfectly legal. Note how all legal scrutiny in the Snowden case (at least in the US) is directed against Snowden himself, and not at all against any of the news outlets that used him as a source. An interesting way to "civilly disobey" would be to have all employees refuse to accept the security clearance (that the NSA would require as part of their collaboration) when the NSA comes calling.
  • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Friday September 13, 2013 @01:58AM (#44838107) Homepage Journal

    and according the constitution they shouldn't be doing blanket spying in the first place, so what exactly is your point?

    they'll call it treason if they want to. they can call it aiding the (potential, mind you) enemy if they want to. and they includes the court they choose and their actions are backed up by the united states military so what exactly would you do? the only option is to close up shop or give in.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Clsid ( 564627 ) on Friday September 13, 2013 @02:05AM (#44838127)

    Which is way Assange's case is so hilarious. The US is blaming a foreigner for breaking US laws and trying to get him extradited. And the weirdest part is that the breaking the law was just acting like a newspaper.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kermidge ( 2221646 ) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:26AM (#44838393) Journal

    "Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society...."

    By which I take it to mean that since we do have secret laws and secret courts then we do not have a democratic society, only some of its superficial trappings.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Friday September 13, 2013 @03:34AM (#44838433)

    Oh... so now you need to be actually convicted of treason to be jailed up for it?

    Or rather: how would you know if no one has been convicted when trials can be held in secret court?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13, 2013 @05:39AM (#44838859)
    I am not an American so I have no say in this, but your best weapon is the red pencil you are given when next you are in the voting booth.
  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob the Bold ( 788862 ) on Friday September 13, 2013 @09:04AM (#44839713)

    Assange can't be charged with treason in the USA, because he is not an American citizen.

    There's plenty of stuff happened lately that can't happen.

  • Re:Treason.. or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Peristaltic ( 650487 ) * on Friday September 13, 2013 @10:55AM (#44840729)
    Honestly, what does it matter what you're charged with if the US government can hold you indefinitely in a concrete box for any reason (or no reason at all)?

Gravity brings me down.

Working...