Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

One branch of the government authorizes another to force corporations to hand over all the private communications and information of a large number of citizens, and all foreigners; the majority of the public of that country agrees. Are the companies which are continually compelled to cooperate at fault for seeking to minimize the financial repercussions of this situation? How have these companies betrayed anyone?

The politicians, voters, bureaucrats, and judges involved in these actions have committed a horrible abuse of their fellow citizens, and (depending on your views on moral obligations to foreigners) an even larger number of other people. The companies they are forcing to cooperate have not betrayed the people any more than a taxpayer does when they (are coerced to) pay taxes that fund these programs.

View on HN

They stance is basically "Hey government, how about we fuck our users over? We hand you their private data and you make sure they cannot sue us for that."

They betrayed anyone trusting them with their private data and anyone who believed their pro-privacy declarations.

Is this data handoff forced or is it voluntary?

Is their lobbying forced or voluntary?

I do not agree to lift blame off of companies. They have social responsibilities like everyone else. They are also high on the power hierarchy.

Companies have to operate within the parameters of the law.

I don't get this. Are people expecting companies to break the law? Is this data hand-off voluntary?

> Companies have to operate within the parameters of the law.

This does not seem to apply in the context where companies are lobbying for / supporting new laws.

I don't see anything in the bill that would allow a company to actually break their EULA with you.

For the millionth time, an EULA is not a contract. A business can try to force a contract of adhesion on you (that is, a contract you do not have the opportunity to negotiate, but until the elements of a contract are satisfied, it's just one party blowing hot air at the other.

Even if there was a contract involved, clauses of the contract can be judged to be unconscionable if they are obviously trying to take advantage of the other party in an unusual or misleading way, or if they try to extend the scope of the contract.

You're going to be really depressed when you find out EULAs are contracts.

>>Companies have to operate within the parameters of the law.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us?

So, you're saying that your company breaks the law?

What?

> Companies have to operate within the parameters of the law.

Tell that to Uber. Or AirBnB. Both of which violate the law, working to overturn the laws, or entice their users to ignore legally binding obligations. These are flagrant disregards for the legal ramifications.

And they aren't he only two. There are many companies out there who break the law. See Volkswagen and the emissions debacle they find themselves in.

History is rife with companies breaking the law. Just look at Apple. Microsoft. Google. All these companies have broken the law. And in each case, they've fought against what they think is wrong.

Do companies have to operate within the parameters of the law?

No.

However high they may be on the heirarchy, they do not have the power of force.

Of course they do, this is a meaningless libertarian platitude. There are kinds of force beyond a gun to your head, and most of them are far more effective and commonly used.

In many ways, corporations have more power than local governments as well as more citizen interaction.

People use Google countless times per day for a plethora of purposes, many of which are smoothly functioning and immensely powerful tools which are given freely.

How many times do you interact with your city, state, or federal government per day? What about per decade?

What do they mean by "....with the government and with each other" (emphasis on the 'with each other' part)?

The one I can understand - companies being compelled to share with the government. However is this act also giving these companies to share with each other?

Federalism and the 10th amendment exist for a reason. If you want to do anything about this, support a candidate in support of strong state's rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com