The giants of the tech industry are uniting to wage a campaign for sweeping reforms to the National Security Agency.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, LinkedIn and AOL are setting aside their business rivalries to demand that Congress and President Obama scale back the government’s voracious surveillance.
These companies had little to no qualms about teaming up with the US government back when it was all done in relative secrecy, but now that it’s out in the open, they’re acting like heroes. This campaign would never have been launched if Snowden hadn’t blown the whistle, which means the motive behind this new campaign is money – not morality.
If you do good for a bad reason, is it still good?
Committing a ‘good’ action for a ‘bad’ reason is still good. A person committing a ‘good’ action for a ‘bad’ reason is not necessarily a good person though.
Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, yet he’s the one that is tracking Snowden as a felon because this one dared to show the world how the USA are far from a peaceful democracy and not such a land of freedom of speech.
And I don’t even speak about Guantanamo’s lack of international supervision, or Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” (how true, and not only speaking about climate from a top polluting country) so well, enough…
Kochise
Spying is far from being warmongering or aggressive.
I hate the fact that they do it, but that is not even in the direction of being aggressive.
Obama Nobel Peace Prize was generally a bad joke…
In my experience: What these companies officially publish and what these companies do is quite opposite.
I’m sure, despite what these companies are publishing at the moment, these companies still will deliberately cooperate with NSA and other secret services.
Is a deliberate lie something “good” ?
pica
You are mistaken, these company have an interest in limiting the amount of information they deliver to NSA, because they know they are loosing trust from foreign companies and individuals. That’s the point of this action. If you think they are doing it for “Good”, you are just an utopist. They are taking this action to protect their business.
Obviously It doesn’t mean they will stop cooperating with secret services, they just want to stop practices that hurt their business (we are talking about generalized surveillance without their consent).
Sounds like a PR stunt. Most of these big companies are pure evil.
Nope. It’s a trick. It’s actually worse than outright bad-doing. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A wooden troy-horse. We cannot trust the NSA OR these giant corporations to do what is best for us.
I think a lot of this anger is misplaced by people who want companies to exercise morality on their behalf. If people are so opposed to what the NSA is doing, then get out and participate in an election and affect change.
A company being compelled by their host government to engage in surveillance is the fault of the government and the elected representatives in power who enact the policies.
Stop using companies as scapegoats and exercise your civic duty to vote.
Edited 2013-12-09 18:16 UTC
I can not vote for another country. Even if their unscrupulous companies do affect my business.
I’m sorry for you. According to Thom, if you post about it enough on OSNews maybe the NSA overlords will yield.
Naiveté.
Yes, I agree. Repeating yourself on OSNews with a snarky lead in over and over is a much more productive means to an end.
Lol.
Ah, the old trick of putting words in my mouth that I have never, ever, said. That’s getting old.
I’m not an American. I cannot vote in your country. In my country, I have been voting for a party that actively opposes stuff like this since its inception.
An apology would be prudent.
I’m sorry my words hurt your feelings. You’re right, don’t vote to change the policies you’re opposed to.
and for some strange reason, you seem to think my original suggestions that US citizens vote to change US policies applied to you.
I’m sure you’re aware which country you’re a citizen of, so I shouldn’t have to attach a disclaimer to my comments.
and its great that you vote, really it is, and you’d use your bully pulpit much more effectively if you encouraged others go do the same, rather than fanning some ant corporate flame that will amount to little more than online saber rattling.
If the NSA policies need to change then start raising awareness, organizing, calling representatives, and yes, voting.
Edited 2013-12-09 19:21 UTC
The US electoral system is inherently broken, and voting is not going to change that. Should I lie and tell US citizens to vote A or B because it’ll change anything, even though I know it won’t?
I don’t lie, I’m sorry. You may believe that the US electoral system is sound and that it properly reflects the will of the people, and that the people have control over that system – but you’re one of the few.
It’s not cynicism. It’s based on observation. You know, science.
You’re right, I don’t buy it. And I’m sorry but I do believe its hyperbolic and cynical. I guess we’ll agree to disagree.
As an American I approve this message.
As it was said by Rambo:
Are you bringing any weapons? Then you’re not changing anything.
How is the US electoral system broken?
The mainstream US populace is apathetic to things such as privacy and security (much less politics in general), and more focused on the latest episode of American Idol, Miley Cyrus shenanigans, and who-shot-who in the local news. The result is a political arena dominated by those who love politics for it’s own rewards (prestige, power & influence, monetary compensation, etc.) rather than those who honestly want to serve their country. This is what happens to any nation that loses sight of the things that made them great in the first place.
Anyone who blames corporations for the mess we’re in is missing the bigger picture. In other countries it may be different, but in the USA corporations only have as much power as the general US population gives them through their own ignorance and apathy. Unfortunately, right now that’s the lion’s share.
/end rant
Edited 2013-12-09 20:37 UTC
Strongly agree.
It’s not accurate that voting for a different candidate wouldn’t change anything. It’s more accurate to say that voting for a different candidate would change everything.
Currently, opinions on NSA spying aren’t split along party lines. Our political system has sadly been reduced to two parties.
Sure, NSA spying bugs you, and sadly your representative that you’ve been voting for in the past is in favor. You could vote for the other guy, and he would likely oppose spying during his time in Congress (if he is elected). Problem is, his position on every other issue is opposite yours.
If your chosen representative Congress votes for further deregulation of industry, abortion restrictions, less gun control, education vouchers and homeschooling support, etc, etc, but is in favor of NSA spying, and your only other candidate is opposed to NSA spying, but votes for more industry regulation, abortion rights, gun control, stronger public schools, etc etc…
What do you do? The other guy likely would fight earnestly against NSA spying, but, he’s also fighting for a bunch of other stuff that you don’t want.
This is the type of thing that American politicians are good at and actually do fight for, depending on their side. The problem is the dearth of candidates means it’s nearly impossible to target one issue without sacrificing the other issues.
I think in this case it does reflect the will of the people… they purposely chose what they thought was security over both freedom and privacy in the wake of 9/11. You can argue that they were mistaken and they didn’t get any of these things, but that doesn’t make the system inherently broken. If you’re arguing a different point, please explain how it’s broken and how that relates to this situation.
Voting is broken. There is a reason why there is general apathy towards it.
Politics is a career these days much like any other career. In the past (in the UK) at least with many seats in the commons the case was that people that were successful and well known in their respective constituencies ended up being politicians instead of starting out as one.
Recently, In the UK people voted for Lib dems because you have to tactically vote, to keep the Tories out if you opposed them in the South of England. The lib dems ignored the very reason why they had so many votes and everyone got a coalition Government nobody wanted.
There is little point voting for anyone else, there is UKIP (friendly racists), BNP (racists) or Greenparty.
In Spain, many do not even question the Government. Last year a news reporter got sacked for asking question that Jeremy Paxman would consider a very easy set of opening questions. It was seen as rude by her employer. Some of the Spanish people I work with say that there is still a lot of Facist (Think General Franco) politicians … I can only read basic Spanish, so I dunno how true this is, I have to rely on what I am told.
This is the attitude Paxman gave to his employer after being asked to read the weather:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMAt8ZXqtbc
What is the point in voting if the politicians don’t understand you, don’t understand your problems and fundamentally it comes down to a dissing contest on TV (just watch BBC Parliament).
The only place I seen any sense is from the House of Lords which was a joke 15 years ago, but many of the “Lords” have made their money and have no reason to actually have an Agenda to further it.
It may well work in the Netherlands, but I won’t bother voting from now on even if I can, I don’t see any value in the activity.
Edited 2013-12-11 00:20 UTC
I always do wonder what’s with the “yeaaaaah” or “nooooo” chants in the British parliament…
elections? Don’t be an idiot. Our elections are a fucking joke and anyone who lives here knows it!
How ignorantly cynical of you.
If elections are meaningless its because the voting electorate has failed in its duty to be informed and involved in the issues.
That’s where scapegoating companies comes in.
Oh god.
You must be the last person in the world who still believes the US electoral system has even one ounce to do with the electorate.
Hilarious. And kind of adorable.
That’s a dangerous way of thinking. If you resign yourself to the notion that your vote doesn’t matter, then it certainly never will. This is why we’re in such a state of affairs.
People looking for a finger to point, blame to assign to anyone except themselves for allowing policies they disagree with to be enacted.
Cynicism is self defeating, and American citizens who feel like darknexus are actively making it harder to make a difference.
The democrats are meant to be the left-wingers, yet the’ve been heavily pro-military and pro-corporation.
Neither Democrats or Republicans are going to do anything to change the shitty culture of fear that has lead to things like the PATRIOT ACT and PRISM.
Because a massive percentage of the US are rednecks/religious fundamentalists, you’re not going to see any large shift towards the greens or libertarians either.
Ergo, there is no point in voting in the US.
Which sucks for the 96% of humanity that *don’t live there*, yet are spied upon and have their countries controlled by the US.
Most countries aren’t much better; I’m an Australian, so I know my racist and conservative country is far from exemplar, but damn it if I don’t want the US to just fuck off and stop controlling us.
Not to the rest of the world, they aren’t. Meant to be left-wingers, that is.
At it’s most left, Democrats are centrists.
I agree, I just meant that they are supposedly the left-wing party, when in fact they are anything but.
Libertarians who align generally participate in the Republican party, since the R’s favor slightly less government than the D’s overall.
Greens generally align with the D’s, since the D’s are a more natural fit for more aggressive government regulation of corporations necessary to enforce environmentally friendly policy.
And ample precedent exists for major policy change driven by the electorate.
For example, the US exit from Vietnam was implemented by Mr. Nixon as a result of growing anti-war sentiment among the young voters, over the objection of the “old guard”.
More recently, the electoral success of the Reform Party in the early 1990s led to an odd alliance between Mr. Clinton and the new Republican majority in congress to balance the budget.
And the TEA Party has had a lot of success pushing the Republicans back toward fiscally restrained policies popular in the 1990s, while the gay rights movement has flipped even Mr. Obama into an ally.
While American politics lack the rough and tumble of many-party republics such as are popular in Europe, it’s a mistake to assume the people lack influence over our government.
Don’t mistake a general apathy for lack of power. We’re one charismatic leader away from the next (peaceful) revolution.
Why not do both? Why not pressure our representatives in Congress and pressure corporations to effect change with their lobbyists? It’d be nice if we could simply vote on the issue, or if it were easier to pick a different candidate, but sadly, the two-party system we have in America makes changing which candidate to vote for extremely difficult to do over one issue.
The problem is that in the US you need money if you want government to pay attention to you. Who has money? Corporations and the people in charge.
They are likely seeing it in their bottom lines somewhere. Cloud prospects declining? Nothing like hits in the $$ bottom line to get Mammon-worshipers to feel the heat … which is more effective than them “seeing the light”
The government will just say fuck you, like they’ve been doing for years. Can’t do anything else, with the power-drunk and corrupt people that we as a population have permitted to lead us. Pathetic.
Wow! I’m amazed at how Thom is capable of turning a story like this into something to complain about. Unbelievable!
Dude, try happiness. Try giving happiness a chance in your life. I hear it’s good for the soul.
Edited 2013-12-09 19:28 UTC
— http://tinyurl.com/indie-nsa
I was well overdue a good belly laugh this month. Thanks for obliging, world’s leading technology companies!
Thom, you forgot that the tech giants did not simply send all their data to the NSA. The NSA had backdoors in their networks (i.e. they sucked up everything after ssl termination). The tech giants didn’t know, and didn’t help the NSA with this.
There are more examples (gag order anyone).
Your comment is unfair and unreasonable.
I think it’s also unlikely that anyone at these companies was being informed of the full extent of the surveillance and data collection.
And even if they did know, they couldn’t do F- all about it.
It’s beautiful, I ALMOST believe in their good intentions. PR damage control bullshit, nothing more.
Morality is up to personal interpretation. Money is not.
Corporations exist to acquire financial gain, not champion morality. For this purpose, we’re supposed to elect people who uphold our ideals of morality and set examples in our own lives. Unfortunately, most people are ignorant or apathetic concerning such topics themselves, so we can’t really expect more from the politicians they elect.
Novan_Leon,
It’s exactly this view that leads to corporations to become abusive while absolving themselves from any responsibility for the social and economic repercussions. “Our actions are not our fault, they’re yours”.
Where to start… We don’t often get to vote on our issues directly (like patent reform, or NSA spying, etc), we vote on the politicians (usually from a ridiculously limited set of two parties at that). If I vote for party X, was I casting my vote for education, gun control, abortion, minimum wage, patents, jobs, outsourcing, NSA, taxes, foreign policy, healthcare, corporate responsibility, …? Mathematically speaking, those twelve dimensions I listed represent at least 4096 distinct viewpoints. Now how does anyone compress all that into a binary vote between two candidates in such a way that anybody knows what the hell we were actually voting for? It’s almost entirely meaningless. Even if my candidate wins and does EXACTLY what he promised, it’s not necessarily the policies I would have voted for given a choice. You cannot _reasonably_ blame voters for policies we didn’t have the opportunity to vote on directly.
Another significant problem with “all/nothing” voting is that voting for your favorite independent politician may statistically be against your interests since your second choice (who has a better chance to win) will loose votes, giving opposing politicians an advantage. For example, the green party might have a 5% vote, the democrats might have a 47% vote, and the republicans might have a 48% vote, so the republicans win. However it’s likely that over 50% of voters would have preferred a democrat over republican. So many independents end up voting for politicians who are less suitable in their minds, this phenomenon is called “tactical voting”. This happens because we don’t use a rank voting system to encourage voters to vote for who they want instead of who they think can win.
I could agree with you, if and only if corporations were eliminated from direct participation in washington. However as it stands the bonds between corporations and government are simply too great to ignore. They are too influential at all stages of government including campaign funding. We have been asking for campaign reform, but corporations fought back and won with “corporations are people too” and “political donations are protected as freedom of speech”. In the meantime we are merely given the illusion of choice at the polls between candidates who are there mostly because they have wealth and connections rather than because they genuinely could represent the people’s interests. Candidates who oppose corporatist policies are virtually unelectable since it’s the corporations who fund their campaigns.
Is this a bit cynical? Yes it is.
Does it have some semblance of truth? Yes it does.
“Tactical voting” is not limited to such scenarios, I did it also in multi-party European country (mostly to force certain coalition – I voted for its smaller potential part, which would not be my first choice).
The essence of a corporation is society allowing people to go into business with a limited personal liability & responsibility. Society allows & promotes this artificial institution because it causes money to move around far more effectively, so it can get to useful places faster.
But it remains an artificial institution to which societies attach various equally artificial stipulations. There is no reason society can’t stipulate & expect basic morality from its corporations. In some places it already does, such as with my own business, which a community interest company.
Contrary to popular smartarse legend, Mammon haters on the left & sheckel worshippers on the right, companies do not exist purely to give a return to their shareholders. They exist because their society sees a purpose for them to exist. It is free to adjust that purpose.
What if the companies actually fight NSA because they see it as an opponent for surveillance technologies?
What if the companies actually want the NSA privatized so they can force the government to use their surveillance services for a big load of money?
It might be exactly this.
This is financially sounding…
I think they will just grow their firewalls taller.
Whoever
(and I mean whoever)
wants inteligence from their silos
will have to pay top dollars for it.
Sometimes PR gets something more efficently
(on the form on public pressure)
than just technology.
(Words -like mine- are cheap.)
Edited 2013-12-09 22:31 UTC
This corporative conglomerate
is not fighting what NSA
did with their consent.
The conglomerate is fighting
what NSA did without their consent.
…….
Now, on defense of NSA:
The boys and girls of NSA are doing what
they were grouped on to do.
And they are doing it well, very well.
Someone should stand by them.
…….
Now, on mea culpa,
This ‘universal’ internet
has had all of the problems common
to mono-cultives, to quasi-infinite clonning,
to DNA engineering;
And I did not care about it.
It was just a matter of time
for the ‘super-bugs’
to come on in, at serve at will.
NSA don’t stop spying
They will hide better all signs of infiltration
Let’s not beat around the bush here. This is all to stop countries from rolling their own linux distro’s and telling American IT companies to get lost. Nothing more, nothing less. There’s no morality here or they would have come forward earlier. Obviously there’s been some very negative reactions from overseas groups to the NSA revelations and Microsoft and Apple are starting to lose business from it. All it would take is one country. Just one, to develop a completely open source government stack, and they could lose the government market in most countries. Certainly China would completely drop off, and that’s billions to trillions of dollars at stake. That’s why these companies are acting.
Also online services – recently I’ve definitely seen more commercials for local backup / cloud drive services.
Edited 2013-12-10 23:24 UTC
when the NSA etc, started using NSL letters etc on these companys. and going after there data without there consent what did they think would happen? they all would just roll over forever?
“This campaign would never have been launched if Snowden hadn’t blown the whistle, which means the motive behind this new campaign is money – not morality.”
Who in their right mind would think otherwise? And, this is a PR campaign, that’s all. Nothing is going to come of this. The NSA is going to continue doing whatever they want, whether it’s legal or not, and regardless what the public thinks. The only way the NSA is going to stop anything is if it were closed, dismantled, and ceased to exist.