Hacker News Reader

Comment by pg | Hacker News Reader

They may not all care what happens to Snowden, but I think it's unfair to say they're merely showing off. I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle. They have little to gain by issuing such a statement, except the goodwill of people like us, but since they're all participating, such goodwill is evenly distributed and no one of them derives an advantage from it. Whereas they all depend on good relations with various bits of the federal government, which they risk offending with this statement.

View on HN

They have a lot to gain. Many analysts are saying that surveillance, or the perception of complicity with it, is going to lose international customers and have other negative effects on business partnerships.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/how-nsa-mass-surveilla...

I agree that for the most part, geeks at these companies are as opposed to surveillance as people outside - probably even more so. However, usually, it's business impact that turns private opinion into official corporate policy.

The crux of the issue for Snowden is whether he is viewed by the public as a whistle-blower or traitor.

These companies have staked out a position, off the back of his endeavors, yet lack the courage and conviction to fully support him.

It makes me cringe to see Larry Page, Marissa Mayer et al posting weasel words on a web-site, as though they are champions of the people.

In the week that Nelson Mandela passed away, the contrast between giants and dwarves could not be clearer.

Snowden didn't do this for publicity or to be grand-standed, he did it because he believed it was right. I think he would agree that he is not the issue people should be discussing. Instead, it should be how to fix the problems he brought to light.

These companies want the conversation to be about surveillance, not Snowden. Had Snowden been mentioned in the letter, it would have set off a distracting debate. They probably appreciate what he did, but publicly thanking Snowden isn't going to help them achieve their goals.

Snowden is also not the only whistleblower. To some extent, the more-limited actions by Binney, Wiebe, and Drake were even more amazing because they were without precedent (at NSA); Snowden went far beyond them, but had their example in mind.

I think his point was that they're all doing it for selfish reasons, not for some "principles". The principles are the public agenda, but they're really doing it because they're starting to lose business overseas - fast. So now they've taken on this "principled" crusade against the government.

I don't really mind it as long as it really works, and it's the outcome I wanted to see anyway, but I think it should be seen for what it really is. If this was really about principles, they would've done something about it years ago, not after they see their financials or relationships overseas drop because of it.

> I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.

I wouldn't say that. With news spreading about the NSA having access to your Google data, including your Gmail, people start to worry, and more importantly, they start to look towards alternatives. Google is getting a pretty bad reputation these days when it comes to user privacy, and this isn't helping their cause. This obviously affects their bottom line, and so they're looking for change.

> I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.

These are the same companies that stand shoulder to shoulder with the same US government when it comes to putting immense pressure on foreign governments to give up their civil rights protections when it comes to privacy.

I can only guess as to their motives, but "high principle" definitely isn't one of them.

I wasn't aware that Twitter was working with the US Government to put immense pressure on foreign governments to give up their civil rights protections on privacy.

Can you cite examples?

People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” —Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft

That makes it pretty clear to me why this campaign is being orchestrated by the companies involved.

I think these companies are acting on pretty high principle.

NOt that i disagree, but I do think if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on this it would remove the stigma of self-dealing. If the "tech industry" was more broadly represented (and included say, Stanford & MIT) again this would be a much more powerful statement. But the reality, is that SV lives off of the governmnet in many indirect ways (nasa, defense, NSF grants, etc) and while they may be principled...well, I sure you get the idea. They're not that principled.

> …if other companies (eg, apple, intel) signed off on…

Apple's logo appear at the bottom of "An open letter to Washington".

I wonder why doesn't it show up on the top of the page

Yes, thats ~weird how they are two sets and apple omits contributing a 'voice' in support. I stand corrected on the point cetainly, wrt the letter at the end.

This is damage control by cowards Paul.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com