Hacker News Reader

if you were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk?

They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions.

They certainly could prosecute you for

But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive.

if you're served a lawful court order, you either obey it or risk the consequences, up to and including time in jail.

When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government?

They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions.

I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions they're taking are perfectly legal. Leaking government secrets? Not so legal…

There's an obvious reward for taking "questionable" tax deductions: lower taxes. What does Ballmer, specifically, gain from releasing classified information?

And really? You want to compare questionable tax practices that aren't actually questionable legally to something that can be construed as espionage?

But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive.

Those two statements don't follow. The government may cease these practices if people find out and come out against them, but that doesn't stop them from prosecuting the person that brought them to light.

When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government?

When was the last time anyone of stature defended the public from the government via illegal means?

It's a risk. Full-stop. You can get prosecuted for releasing classified information. And let's not even take it all the way to going to jail. The government can make your life a living hell just by prosecuting you for a crime, even if they're unsuccessful in getting a conviction.

Which leads me back to my first question, why would Ballmer take that risk?

The former chairman of Quest started a six year sentence in 2009 for defying the NSA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

They don't even have to prosecute you for not obeying a secret order, they can easily use some other law to put you away, especially given they have legal access to any communication about, from and to you. I choose to believe him rather than the NSA on the reasons for that prosecution.

I imagine that case had a sobering effect on anyone high up in these companies who was inclined to stand up to the NSA.

> if you're served a lawful court order

... you challenge it, pulling out from campaign contributions, and making noise in the press. Microsoft (and Google, and Yahoo, and and and) have billions of dollars they could use to resist pretty much any law they wanted to.

Every day we complain that modern democracies are captive to moneyed commercial interests, and now we should believe that actually, they're completely powerless, oppressed by Big Bad Government? I don't think so.

Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably.

Granted, Microsoft et. al could attempt to lobby politicians to get these sorts of laws reversed, but that's not the position I was arguing against. Specifically, the GP said, "Do you think the government would jail someone of Steve Ballmer's stature if he talked openly about what the government has asked of Microsoft." That's an argument that Ballmer clearly could've talked about these programs because they wouldn't arrest him, but that assumes two things: a) Ballmer knew about this, and b) Ballmer was willing to take the risk that he wouldn't go to prison if he talking about that. Neither of those are a given.

Talking about lobbying is attacking an argument I didn't make, but I'll address it anyway.

From the standpoint of the big companies, lobbying only makes sense before the law is passed if you have no interest in following it. Alternatively, you follow it while lobbying to get it changed. You now have companies attempting to get the government to allow them to talk more openly about what they do with regards to PRISM and so forth. To put it in perspective, if SOPA had've passed, do you think Google et. al would've just ignored it?

Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably.

The standard some have applied to Snowden should also apply to corporate executives: companies should oppose the orders publicly, and "face the music." Ballmer might be arrested, or his family harassed, but he would go from dancing developer monkey to public hero overnight.

You're making the assumption that Ballmer even knew about this, which isn't immediately clear. Someone at Microsoft certainly did, but so did people working within the government. You know, people working for US citizens, ultimately, if you still believe in the whole "government for the people, by the people" thing. So far, only Snowden leaked any of this stuff. I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Ballmer's feet in particular, considering both of those things.

Oh, they all have their fair share of guilt, of course. What I'm saying is that there are citizens and there are citizens. Billionaires like Ballmer, Ellison or Gates, and the corporations they run are, de facto, less amenable to legislative pressure, if anything because they have armies of lawyers ready to blow holes in every book thrown at them. At any point in time, they could have resisted this overreach in many, many ways, and they didn't, so they're as guilty as the power-crazy civil servants and lawmakers who started the whole thing.

In Microsoft defense, consequences could include threatening government contracts...

that's not defense, that's corruption.

It's leverage.

(In the US, corruption is hidden by punishing whistleblowers.)