Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Yahoo Form Alliance Against NSA 293
mrspoonsi writes "BBC reports: Leading global technology firms have called for 'wide-scale changes' to US government surveillance. Eight firms, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Yahoo, have formed an alliance called Reform Government Surveillance group. The group has written a letter to the US President and Congress arguing that current surveillance practice 'undermines the freedom' of people. It comes after recent leaks detailed the extent of surveillance programs. 'We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide,' the group said in an open letter published on its website."
Will they leave the USA? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's their nuclear option? What's their post-nuclear strategy? It's doubtful the NSA is going to change their ways.
It's like the hyenas criticising the lions (Score:5, Insightful)
current surveillance practice 'undermines the freedom' of people.
"undermines the freedom" of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is happy to collect all the information it can get its hands on (and get away with), I am sure the others are equally as complicit.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprisingly enough, I think this may be fairly serious. The big US Internet business are becoming increasingly scared that the spectre of NSA mass data-gathering is going to shut them out of markets outside the US.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
thank you for releasing a press statement claiming that you are standing up, in a way that mollifies those concerned about their privacy, while lacking any substantive evidence of resistance
American corporations, and these 5, in particular, have shown a history of not minding deceitful marketing in the slightest. I feel no compelling reason to trust them.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
question: do these companies care about US or THEIR PROFITS (due to people turning away from their free online services)?
I'll give you one guess which of those it is.
in fact, those companies KNEW about the spying (they were asked by the gov, many many times, to reveal info about their users) but only NOW do they *act* like they care about us.
just an excuse to try to make themselves look good and stand along the side of citizens in what they perceive as an alignment.
but its all bullshit. those companies do not care one whit about our privacy. they DO care about a mass exodus away from their services to offshore ones and the fact that 'the cloud' is now seen as something to be avoided.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed the foreign governments even consider ising an americal based OS (at any time really, but most certainly now) for anything that requires any level of security while also being internet connected. Really, the same goes for most software. It just seems like asking to be pwned.
Sounds Legit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"undermines the freedom" of people (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between volunteering your information and having it scooped up by a government agency that has already shown that it will use the information to blackmail you.
AOL (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone else pointed out "Seven leading Internet firms" and AOL
Who's still using AOL , or is still paying for it and actually uses their service. I'm sure I read somewhere that a large percentage of their users are unaware that they no longer needed their AOL subscription to get online via broadband?
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
question: do these companies care about US or THEIR PROFITS (due to people turning away from their free online services)?
Of course they are primarily concerned about their profits (especially about the potential loss of business from non-US customers, who under current NSA doctrine apparently have no right to privacy at all). But in this case, the companies are right on the merits. Their interests and the interests of the general public are, on this particular issue, aligned.
Civil liberties battles are hard enough under the best of circumstances. You take your allies where you can find them.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, they want the NSA to just buy the information it needs from them.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Insightful)
He who votes decides nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
He who COUNTS the votes decides everything. Good luck guys. Let us know how it works out for you.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
All they are doing is try to protect themselves and their businesses. They could give a shit less about the people being spied on. If they had really cared they would have done this years ago not simply when the egg splatted on their faces.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? I don't give a shit what they are doing so long as they can get some kind of results. If I had to choose who was spying on me, I'd rather it be a company than a government. Companies can't misconstrue something that you said, send you to a prison camp and torture you.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is always an alternative.
Re:Damage Control Mode - ON. Well, fuck 'em all (Score:5, Insightful)
Policy-wise, nothing really gets done in the US without the implicit consent of corporate power. This applies even to things like spying. The government is run by the wealthy elite and therefore the policies are designed to favor their interests. Where those interests may conflict, it is usually the entity with the greater influence or better connections that gets their way.
This latter point is where we stand with regard to warrantless domestic surveillance of US citizens by the NSA. The eight companies that have "allied" against this practice, albeit influential as a group, have been for the most part self-interested competitors, and many of them make no attempt to hide the fact that they run a business model that is predicated upon mining personal data from its users in order to sell advertising (Google and Facebook being the most notable examples).
However, that is not to say that they actively or "happily" collaborated with the NSA. The legal requirements, as far as we have been apprised of them, force their cooperation. It is not logical to assume that just because their business involves exploiting their users, that they would not object to NSA surveillance, because the latter does have a deleterious effect on the former. If users suddenly feel paranoid because they think these companies are (willingly or unwillingly) handing over their personal information to the government, then they would be more reluctant to share that data by posting it online. The fear of surveillance brings about increased awareness of the need for protecting one's privacy, which of course is NOT what these companies want. That is the essential argument behind their opposition.
In any case, these companies are merely the repositories for end-user information. The real culprits here, the ones who ARE happily handing over information to the government, are the telecommunications companies, notably AT&T. They are the ones who let the NSA install listening devices on their networks. And you will note that these companies have NOT banded together to protest this illegal surveillance program. They don't see any need to, because they have too much power (since the entire internet is reliant on them) and, unlike Google and Facebook, they have no incentive to protect the data that flows through their networks. If a subscriber doesn't want to share personal information about themselves to a social network, they can opt out of doing so, and the result is a loss of valuable data for the company that operates that network. But it is MUCH harder to completely forgo the internet entirely, which is what you would have to do in order to avoid having AT&T send your data to the NSA. And AT&T doesn't make their money off selling your personal information to advertisers. They make it off your basic need for connectivity.
Re:It's like the hyenas criticising the lions (Score:5, Insightful)
current surveillance practice 'undermines the freedom' of people.
I can choose not to use Google (yes, I can even choose to disable their trackers on websites, like, say Slashdot). I can't choose not to have the NSA snoop on email. So it's more like the merchants criticizing the taxmen. One will happily take your freedoms if you give it to them, the other will take your freedoms willing or not.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Insightful)
Until this got leaked out into the public sphere, they were gagged by the same surveillance orders. They couldn't say anything without admitting they were served with secret subpoenas. Now that this is public knowledge, they can refer to those that were leaked and say this is bad for business/citizens without breaking the law on any further subpoenas.
So, maybe they didn't care. Or maybe they did and just couldn't say anything about it due to the same evil law. From this vantage point, we still can't tell for sure.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:3, Insightful)
The "so what" is that they would have never done anything had there been no PR disaster. They would have continued to gladly give taps on their customer's data. Ignorants like yourself will believe this stunt is some genuine backlash when it's simply so they can save face and continue yo give over the data anyway.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
American corporations, and these 5, in particular, have shown a history of not minding deceitful marketing in the slightest. I feel no compelling reason to trust them.
As well you shouldn't. But don't look a gift horse in the mouth. This is capitalism at work... our government doing the wrong thing has hurt their bottom line, so they are using their financial and political muscle to get change. This is a good thing. I, like you, doubt they are acting out of pure good will, but I'll take what I can get.
2ndly, Google having my personal data is a bad thing, I agree... but it's orders of magnitude less dangerous than the government having that same data. At most, Google can annoy me with spam, hurt my credit rating, or use psychology to trick me into buying something I otherwise wouldn't have. The government on the other hand can imprison me, force me to implicate friends, blackmail me, or even torture and kill me. Lets work on the securing the serial killer in the room before we worry about the shady used car salesman.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they are possibly just using the outrage to negotiate a higher price.
Great PR (Score:4, Insightful)