
With Prism Cooperation, Tech Giants Look Weak - will_brown
http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-17/with-prism-cooperation-tech-giants-look-weak
======
greyman
I am also disappointed by the tech giants behavior, but not primarily for
PRISM.

Yes, they shouldn't give the data that willingly, but what I see as much more
troubling is the agencies ability to tap into the net's full flow of
communications
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A),
etc.)

I simply don't believe that the Big Techs weren't aware of this. And here lies
the biggest hypocrisy of their: that those companies, especially Google and
Facebook, instead of warning us that our privacy is being slowly stolen from
us, went the opposite route and encouraged us to share even more of our
personal data, which now all ended in we-don't-know-in-how-many data centers
belonging to various governments.

~~~
apineda
There are huge penalties for saying no, contractually, etc. Just look at the
Gibson guitar raids. Also wasn't YAHOO one that did say no and still they were
strong armed? I mean, it is the gov. that has the real teeth here (real
weapons, regulation rulings etc., not patents).

~~~
purephase
For some of the tech companies, yes. But I imagine that even the US government
would have some significant day-to-day challenges if Google were not available
to it's employees (State or Federal).

That has to provide some leverage when dealing with situations that you should
not be comfortable with.

~~~
mpyne
> But I imagine that even the US government would have some significant day-
> to-day challenges if Google were not available to it's employees (State or
> Federal).

Oh, you have _no_ idea. Even in the DoD Google is a required element of much
of what I do on some weeks.

------
mtgx
Google especially tends to give in pretty easily to these outside pressures.
Look what they've done for MPAA/RIAA over the years. They've automated the
DMCA process for them for both Google search and Youtube, even though they
weren't compelled to do so.

I bet they also believe they've washed their hands off this because they
"report" these DMCA takedowns. Yeah, _thanks_ Google - for creating an
automated censorship system that no Court or law asked you to create.

~~~
rryan
A DMCA takedown request isn't talking about a URL -- it's talking about
content. Google is likely saving themselves lifetimes of human effort (and the
associated salaries) that would have to go into manual screening. I imagine
content ID is necessary for YouTube to exist sustainably -- not a gift to
RIAA/MPAA.

~~~
bskap
A DMCA takedown request requires "Identification of the material that is
claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that
is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information
reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material."
Generally, this means that the company submitting the takedown provides a
specific list of URLs with infringing content. They can't just say "videos
infringing on x exist on your site, go find them", and the safe harbor
provision of the DMCA means that Google isn't responsible for hunting down
infringement on their own.

------
comrade_ogilvy
Under our system of laws, the corporations own this data, and they can do what
they please. Sell or give it away to the NSA? Well, why not?

Even if the FISA court is eliminated (fat chance), it will not change much in
the long haul. "Cooperation" will be encouraged by many legal means.

We should not expect that _corporate-owned property_ will be used in a way
that we are all happy and hunky-dory about. If we do not like that, _change
the law_ s.

~~~
toufka
>they can do what they please. Sell or give it away to the NSA? Well, why not?

Exactly. The can do whatever they please. They have the power to tell the NSA
to take a hike. And that power makes them look strong in the eyes of their
customers.

And that strong action is not the one they took. They had the power to do
whatever they pleased with their data that their customers gave them, and they
_chose_ to hand it to the government. And that makes them look weak.

This is a perception issue that is not directly (but is certainly indirectly)
tied to a bottom line. Sure, they government will give them some cash - and
sure they'd fire up a few lawsuits if the companies refused to cooperate. But
all of that is chump change compared to revenue from 'all non-US customers'.

~~~
greyman
Actually, I am still waiting for Google and other companies to offer us some
real explanation.

What could have happened? Maybe they didn't expect it will be whistle-blowed,
maybe they realized that the NSA is so technologically strong that making such
obstructions doesn't really matter, or they were receiving other benefits for
cooperating, who knows? ...but I think it will be clearer after a few more
Guardian articles. ;-)

------
magicalist
> _Finally, on Friday, the New York Times reported[1]—using some conveniently
> leaked documents—that Yahoo had tried to resist the NSA’s attempts to compel
> it to provide user data but was ultimately unsuccessful and was ordered by
> the court to comply._

> _These companies may have convinced themselves that cooperation was
> inevitable, or that they needed to do something to help the government catch
> terrorists, or that by automating the legally legitimate FISA process they
> could save themselves a lot of trouble and expense, or some combination of
> all the above. But in reality, they have not only shown themselves to be
> weak—which will encourage the NSA to pressure them even further because it
> knows it can win—but also fundamentally untrustworthy, and that could cause
> them a lot more problems with users than they ever contemplated._

Who is voting up this nonsense? Since when is losing in court equivalent to
rolling over for the NSA? Not only does the author refer to the "the legally
legitimate FISA process" multiple times (apparently the government is absolved
from blame here), he also writes multiple times that we has no idea what PRISM
actually is. But why not jump to conclusions anyway!

> _So far, the only company that seems to have emerged unscathed is Twitter,
> which reportedly fought the government’s attempts to enrol the company in
> the Prism program and succeeded, a tale that has burnished Twitter’s claim
> to be the “free-speech wing of the free-speech party.”_

Except that Twitter has agreed with Google in saying that companies should be
allowed to disclose ranges of FISA requests separate from other requests,
rather than lumping all requests (federal and local) together[2]. It's not a
slam dunk, but it strongly implies that, regardless of what PRISM is, Twitter
has received and complied with FISA orders.

This article seems like the author said, "We still don't know what PRSIM is,
but I have a deadline, so let's see what I can bang out in 5 minutes." Not
only are there no new facts, what speculation is here doesn't even seem well
thought through.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-
ru...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-
tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

[2] [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/google-calls-u-s-
da...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/google-calls-u-s-data-request-
disclosures-a-step-backward-for-users/)

------
joelrunyon
Non-mobile version for you desktop users out there -
[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-17/with-
prism-c...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-17/with-prism-
cooperation-tech-giants-look-weak)

