I would argue that if FastMail were an USA company their statements (if any) would be just as ambiguous as those of G, FB, A and MS.
Remember how quickly SOPA sank after the Silicon Valley establishment turned against it? Do you think the government is going to put the CEOs of some of America's most popular and profitable companies in jail for an act of civil disobedience that the majority of the country and the world would support wholeheartedly?
SV is more powerful than it realizes, and has little to fear in the current climate. The American national security state, on the other hand, is weakened and vulnerable. Now is the time to take a stand. Not doing so is equivalent to complicity.
I think it's already been established that the NSA has HUGE financial resources (from the part that we can tell) and to top it all off, fighting the NSA on it's grounds would most likely pass through the FISA court. A court which in and of itself, is shrouded in secrecy.
Also, this: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12727867/#.UlKlY2RtVOg
It would be interesting to see what would actually happen if one of the big American internet companies just said the truth. "We have received 35 NSL's and we gave them your data."
What would actually happen? Would their stock go up or down? Would they gain or lose customers? Would anyone be prosecuted and jailed?
If you support the rule of law, you should expect and demand that if it comes to legal consequences that's exactly what will happen. You can fight the law in parallel and use the trial to challenge it, but expect the consequences anyway. Otherwise you're calling for the rich and powerful to be held to a different, weaker standard just because in this case you might like the outcome.
You can treat it as the lesser evil, acknowledging that they're already held to weaker standards and that happens to be useful here, but you'd still be helping to entrench a system which is ultimately bad for you unless you're also very rich.
The NSA is a 60 year old spy agency at the heart of the national security infrastructure and government.
You are comparing two entirely dissimilar things.
Also, how exactly is the American national security state 'weakened and vulnerable'?
At the moment, there are many people shouting for them to be shut down. Will it happen? Probably not. But at the moment, that is something for the NSA to worry about and to try to do damage control over. In that sense, they are certainly in a quite worse position.
The US Government operates on an extralegal basis (ie they're willing to cross any line), and roughly 85%+ of all new debt is purchased by the Federal Reserve. What very specifically is not going to happen, is the shut down of the military industrial complex of which the NSA is such an integral part.
So long as the dollar (Federal Reserve Note I should say) remains the global reserve currency, the national debt is a trivial problem (as is paying the interest on it). The dollar is the real linchpin, to everything. All else is a sideshow of political gamesmanship.
If a credit card company refuses to raise your limit, that is not a default. A default is when you stop making payments on your debt. As long as the government has enough tax income to pay interest on its debt, there is no default. Calling it a default is a scare tactic to get their credit card limit raised.
The solution is for governments to spend only the tax revenue they receive - no more. Not only should the debt ceiling not be raised, it should be slowly lowered to zero over the next 10 years. If the government had to explain to everyone how much their taxes would need to be raised in order to invade Syria, etc., people might actually pay attention. Just my opinion.
If the US wanted to instantly achieve a balanced budget, they would have to spend 3/5ths the current amount. When a government cuts the amount it spends, it shrinks the economy, and reduces tax take.
In the UK, a limited form of this strategy seems to be working, but in Southern Europe, a strong 'austerity' strategy is creating a spiral of reducing tax take (requiring ever greater cuts).
So the sharp reduction in the deficit you mention is not possible. It would need to be gradual.
The elephant in the room is that, in the US, China, and Europe, the aging population is coming. As the proportion of contributors to consumers of public spending shifts, more debt is inevitable. It's going to suck pretty bad for everyone, but if we (all of us) can't achieve a balanced budget before that hits, then things are not going to be as gentle.
Currently government isn't able to pass a "normal budget" much less a very radically changed budget + huge and rapid changes in government agencies - if USA doesn't rise the debt ceiling, the actual effect will be not paying the interest due which is called a default.
Those companies, being a huge influence on the internet culture and economy, a trend-setter, one might even say the internet gatekeepers - I think they not only should disclose and vehemently oppose any attempts on user rights, but it is their moral obligation to do so.
How is it that individuals and small parties are scrutinized and put down for a single misstep or a character flaw, while enterprises are forgiven, or worse - go unnoticed, for systematic violations of our rights.
Also, keep in mind, that being a big business like Google, inevitably puts you in a close proximity to government and politics. One thing is certain, they do not lobby on our behalf. Though they could. If Google and other giants had a moral compass resembling one of Lavabit or FastMail, perhaps PRISM would fail or never happen.
Keep in mind that these companies' only obligations are to their shareholders.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/h...
Your statement is mostly true but completely hollow. Just because your primary obligation is to your shareholders doesn't mean you go along with (arguably) illegal acts committed by your government that run counter to your users. Because if you do that long enough, your users will leave and you will have screwed your shareholders in an attempt to look out for your shareholders.
This is why your comment is hollow. Because it attempts to excuse any behavior that provides short-term gain regardless of mid-term or long-term pain.
Also, who is to say that moral behavior isn't in the long term interest of shareholders?
Yet could, e.g, Google Ireland Ltd do so, by some interesting twist of laws?