
Yahoo's Fight for its Users Earns the Company Special Recognition by EFF - jasondemeuse
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition
======
mythz
Ironically the only major tech company not to deny NSA involvement, is
seemingly doing the most for its users privacy. Fighting against the
overreaching arm of the US Govt in secret courts for the last 6 years, without
any potential for publicizing their plight exemplifies Yahoo's true stance on
user privacy. Actions speak louder than words, what you do when no-one's
watching, without any potential of direct benefits or exposure shows Yahoo's
true colors.

Which is in stark contrast against other major tech companies strategy of
instead deny direct involvement, launch marketing campaigns promoting users
privacy as their top priority and go as far as launching anti-privacy
campaigns criticizing the privacy policies of their competitors, whilst
simultaneously providing an indiscriminate fire-hose of private user data
directly to the NSA.

------
joshuak
I have hated yahoo because of their poor products, bad user experience,
ridiculous design sense, and what appears to be just brand marketing for a
brand's sake.

However, I have to say this news gives me a strong reason to reevaluate yahoo.
And my own feelings about this makes it clear to me there is a market in
customers who are interested in having their rights respected. I'm looking
forward to the new wave of strong security, and corporate user rights policies
as a feature.

~~~
yuhong
I think Marissa has recently did a lot of changes to improve Yahoo.

~~~
finnw
She seems to be good at getting nerds talking about Yahoo. I don't think I was
ever in the target market for any of their products, and I almost forgot the
company existed, until the recent controversy about the ban on remote working.

~~~
deadreturns2
Uh what do you have against remote working that you're switching to Yahoo just
cause they banned it?

~~~
angli
I understood that to mean he'd forgotten about the company until the remote-
working ban controversy brought it back into the spotlight, not that he's
boycotting Yahoo on the basis of its remote-working policy

~~~
frogpelt
Actually he thought the opposite, that said user was switching to Yahoo!
because they banned remote-working on the basis that said user does not
approve of remote-working.

But it is confusing.

------
stdgy
Companies should be commended for their efforts to fight these orders.
However, let's not forget that Yahoo also handed over information to the
Chinese government that led to the arrest and prolonged imprisonment of
multiple people, and then tried to cover up their behavior by pretending they
didn't know why the information was being requested.

I suspect that the backlash from those actions may have led the company to
appeal the FISC orders, fearing similar potential future liabilities.

Source: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/11/yahoo-calls-
withh...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/11/yahoo-calls-withholding-
of-info-on-chinese-arrests-a-misunderstanding/)

~~~
neilk
I don't think that's how it works. Yahoo went all-in with China and has
significant staff and hardware and user records located in Chinese
jurisdiction. Once you make that initial mistake you're basically fucked when
it comes to resisting the Chinese government, because they'll just throw your
people in jail, or confiscate servers.

In America there are appeals processes, so Yahoo could avail themselves of
those.

So Yahoo may well have had a consistent "fight for the users" policy, but were
constrained differently in different jurisdictions.

------
aniket_ray
The complete tally for different companies is here: [https://www.eff.org/who-
has-your-back-2013](https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013)

~~~
loginalready
I suppose the big empty space on the right is where "Respects users' privacy
in _their own_ business practices" should be.

But of course this is only about the Big Bad Government.

It's an interesting cultural difference how privacy suddenly becomes in issue
in the US now that it's about the government, and totally fine when people
were being tracked an profiled for profit.

~~~
GhotiFish
There's a key difference.

When it's the government, there's a chance a big black van will pull up next
to you and haul you away for the rest of your life.

A corp is likely just trying to manipulate you into buying their worthless
junk. Not good, but at least you're not dead or imprisoned.

------
diff_sky
"Yahoo went to bat for its users – not because it had to, and not because of a
possible PR benefit"

Good for them, but also perhaps motivated from poor PR resulting from this
episode:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo!#Outing_of_C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo!#Outing_of_Chinese_dissidents)

~~~
Amadou
Even if the incident with screwing over the chinese dissidents is the entire
reason they fought the NSA in court that does not subtract one iota from the
good karma they deserve for fighting the NSA in court.

People who learn from their mistakes deserve at least as much praise as the
ones who got it right from the beginning (the list of which seems to be
exceptionally short in this case).

------
jjp9999
Only in 2005, Yahoo helped the Chinese regime prosecute a journalist. That
wasn't the only time that happened, either. (Source: NYT -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-
yahoo.html?_r=0) )

~~~
discardorama
I'm tired of this example. AFAIR, Yahoo got a valid court order to turn over
information, and they complied because they had a presence there. No other
company: not Google, not Microsoft, not AOL would have done anything
different.

~~~
coryl
Twitter might have, if they had a presence.

They had this sort of issue in France a while back didn't they?

------
e3pi
"... While Yahoo still has a way to go in the other Who Has Your Back
categories (and they remain the last major email carrier not using HTTPS
encryption by default)..."

Why? and how vulnerable to Eve, not using HTTPS?

~~~
jethro_tell
This is what I'm so confused about. 6 years ago they realized they would need
to protect their customers from prying eyes yet they couldn't wrap their heads
around encryption being a major player in that system? I'm not buying it.

------
tptacek
Subhed: "The truth begins putting its pants on."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876108)

~~~
psbp
Except when Snowden actively denies these companies inability to avoid
compliance.

I'm not sure who to believe that this point. This whole thing is messier than
cold war politics and it was probably orchestrated that way.

------
znowi
Well, this is a little weird... Yahoo that joined PRISM in 2008 gets a gold
star from EFF?

~~~
umsm
I doubt you can "join" PRISM. You're forced in.

~~~
cinquemb
"forced in" meaning that in order to continue to conduct business as is
without trying to circumvent in the name of their users interests, they chose
to align their interests with the surveillance state in order to minimize any
potential short term corporate hardships.

It kind of reminds me of how a certain president received a nobel peace prize
yet the actions conducted under his policies (or rule) are in contradiction to
the ideals of what the prize is named after, but I digress.

There is always a choice to be made…

~~~
herge
> potential short term corporate hardships

You mean prison time, like what happened to Joseph Nacchio?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio)

~~~
cinquemb
Notice I did not say "potential short term _individual_ hardships", regardless
of what he was charged and convicted of (which wasn't failure to comply with
NSA orders of which he says are in retaliation of)…

~~~
psbp
So you're completely disregarding the possibility that Qwest was dismantled
and Nacchio was just a pawn?

------
yuhong
Notice the name of the law used is mentioned in this article.

~~~
cpeterso
Protect America Act?

~~~
mtgx
How Orwellian of them. Does that law still exist, though? I thought they
replaced it with the FISA Amendments Act or something.

~~~
yuhong
Yes, they did. I read an article about it before.

------
benatkin
It seems like an odd choice to leave the exclamation point out.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo)!

~~~
untog
Ironically, the HN auto-linker doesn't pick up on it, either.

