Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 17:02 UTC
Legal I didn't want to put this in the article on the coordinated PR campaign, but the fact that one company refuses to cooperate with the US government in the way Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others were more than willing to do, is very, very important. This means that the argument "but we had to do the things we did because Washington told us to" holds no water. Twitter's refusal proves that the others did not have to say yes - they chose to do so. Whenever someone - a corporate PR person, company blogger, or fanboy - tells you Microsoft, Apple, or Google had no choice, all you need to say is "Twitter".
Permalink for comment 564166
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't get it
by gfxmonk1 on Sun 9th Jun 2013 01:47 UTC
Member since:

I honestly don't get it. From the article(s), it sounds like all companies were legally required to do <X>.

As well as doing <X>, the other companies decided to make a process for doing <X> efficiently, such that complying with the law was more efficient (and perhaps more automated / less error prone).

It sounds like the argument is that you should do <X> as inefficiently as possible, because it's bad. Which is surely the wrong tree to be barking up...

Reply Score: 3