I don't think so. I think the NSA would fold if those five cards were played simultaneously.
Executives who are still playing along at this point are just cowards.
Through such an arrangement the USG would be able to exert considerable control. One can enter serious conspiracy territory and speculate that the entire recession recently was orchestrated by the USG to launder billions of dollars to gain influence in a variety of companies and property across the world.
Lets disconnect this behavior from the specific instance's moral outrage:
If Exxon, BP, Chevron, Shell simultaneously came out and ignored all EPA restrictions would their CEOs all go to jail, doing enormous damage to the stock market?
This sound like a good thing to anyone?
It happens all the time, though, if you look at the financial, banking, insurance and oil industry - even without the slightest (moral) excuse. And nobody goes to jail, just some ridiculous fines to pay.
This time, there is a very serious moral imperative.
You are either for the rule of law or you arent.
To vastly summarize, if a law is unjust change the law.
No, it doesn't.
"Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as 'an exceedingly elusive notion' giving rise to a 'rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is.'
"At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or 'thin' definition, and a substantive or 'thick' definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the 'justness' of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
If believing in the rule of law that you are defining here means that one would believe that one should absolutely follow all laws at all times, then I'm not a believer in the rule of law.
'The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) generally refers to the influence and authority of law within society, especially as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.[2] This phrase is also sometimes used in other senses.[3]
In its general sense, the phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".[4] Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"[5] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it but have contrasting convictions about what it is."[6]
At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.[7]'
Individuals banding together for civil disobedience is completely different from commercial entities banding together. Hoping for commercial entities to break laws because you hope to happen to benefit from this rule breaking in this particular instance seems to be ill advised from my perspective.
Really?
Two completely different things.
Not sure what is going on with the massive cognitive dissonance being displayed.
Government ignoring constitution/laws for perceived moral/efficiency benefits BAD, commerical entities ignoring laws for perceived moral/efficiency benefits GOOD.
The fines and environmental regulations imposed against corporations are viewed very poorly by libertarian extremists, so the comparison is apt. Advocates the KKK certainly identify with the likes of Ghandi, too.
The negative externalities are pollution and secret monitoring of customers. Polluting more doesn't reduce or eliminate either of those for the public, while informing the public of how it is being monitored does.
That being said, it would be a protest, and all useful protests against government are unlawful.
Utilitarian morality could be that the net effect of the free market demands for an unwatched internet is the correct moral course of action. But as you may have unwittingly hinted at, it is entirely dependent on how the position of the companies and choice of action relate to the benefit of the society. In this case with the NSA the answer is yes, in your example, no, but that should prove that the idea of corporate collusion and interference with gov't isn't intrinsically morally wrong. Just depends on what the companies stand for.
I think our fundamental disagreement however is i don't think a company 'stands' for anything but making money. I think further that if commercial entities are allowed to hide behind 'morality' when determining which laws to follow this will lead to extreme abuse, since in my worldview commercial entities do not have a 'moral' code.
If say, mark zuckerberg wanted to do a sit in in front of the NSA knowing he is violating tresspassing laws (for the sake of arguement) then thats his personal moral choice, and as long as he is willing to face the consequences, kudos to him.
But realistically the majority of the american people dont have a problem with the NSA programs. I know it burns a lot of HN up, but as of right now, thats just reality. We know that the elected executive branch, the judicial branch, and the elected legislative branch more or less have signed on to this NSA thing. If perhaps they were in the dark before, this is no longer the case. This is democracy at work people, sometimes the majority of people want something I dont agree with, thats democracy.
Now just because democracy 'failed' doesn't mean I want some small cabal of very rich and powerful folks to decide they will not have to follow the laws of this country because they have the power to do so.
Markets serve customers first. If the companies colluded to act morally in their customers interest and against repressive governments, then I don't see it being a comparable issue. They would be rewarded longer term with customer loyalty.
If oil companies collude to ignore safety regulations, that would harm customers, then it's something that would result in a different market response and much greater legal implications from citizen lawsuits, not only from the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...
Why wouldn't they?
> doing enormous damage to the stock market?
If they willfully broke the law to act against the interests of their stockholders, that's another thing to keep them in jail for.
Playing chicken with an out-of-control government is a very dangerous game for anybody.
Will they? They're of course competitors, they could be played off against each other by the government. Anyways, such talks would have to remain ultra-secret.
They're happy where they are. Profits are good. This article is one of the most naive pieces I've ever read.
What do Google, apple, etc want now? For this subject to go away and so that their big mass of users forget about it, that is what they want.