Hacker News Reader

I find it hilarious that the Obama White House doesn't seem to be taking the tech companies' position seriously.

They're lobbying because the government surveillance revelations hurt their business model, not on principle. Even I'm having a hard time taking their positions seriously. I mean, they're right, I'm fine with the means they're lobby for change and I share their desired ends. But in light of their motivations I don't take them seriously.

One of the key points in their push for new legislation is establishing a universal framework for handling cross-jurisdictional legal conflicts -- one in particular is Google being indicted in the UK on privacy violations and them subsequently requesting to move the avenue of debate to an American court. These kinds of legal uncertainties are troublesome for large multinational corporations, especially with regards to patents and whatnot.

They're piggy-backing on the surveillance issue to push their idea of universal jurisdiction, a concept unheard of until WWII during the Nuremburg trials where German war criminals were charged with violating American laws even though they weren't Americans, the victims weren't Americans, and the crimes hadn't occurred on American soil. The very basis of state sovereignty is being challenged.

"Because it hurts their business model" simplifies things a bit too much.

This is completely made up legal theory. Please don't push it as anything approaching truth. Not only is Google not being "indicted" (it's a civil suit), it has nothing to do with NSA reform (it's about the Safari third-party cookies workaround), and jurisdictional challenges, even wrong ones, are as old as the hills.

Matters of jurisdiction in international law are a pretty hot topic at the moment -- have been for a few years, and will probably continue to be for the next decade or two.

Matters of jurisdiction in international law

They are as old as questions of sovereignty, that's why it s a problem and not only likely to be remedied soon.

Quite.

You're right, it's more of a conspiracy theory than anything else, but I can't get past the idea that tech corporations are suddenly interested in right's of users to privacy from their government.

Suddenly? Of course suddenly! The relevations were sudden, the consequences are sudden.

On a macro level tech companies are not interested in the government invading the privacy of the people who are using their services because at the very least it doesn’t benefit them in any way. It might even be an inconvenience to deal with in some cases.

The problem is, however, that at any moment large tech companies deal with many issues and problems and they prioritise some over others, on a macro level probably mostly depending on how much money they stand to make. Now, the government invading the privacy of their users certainly doesn’t make them any money – but most of the time it probably also doesn’t lose them any money, or only very little.

However, now everyone is talking about it. More people are starting to care about privacy and the companies can expect to lose at least some customers. Many medium-sized businesses in Germany have already been banning any and all US online services for company use, but the revelations might increase their number even more, for example.

So now companies are becoming more active. On the macro level because they stand to lose money. But I’m pretty sure that the picture will be very different when looking at the micro level. I’m pretty sure that when you look at the people leading the charge for these companies you will find many who feel passionately about this and always have been. It’s just that now there is both enough political capital inside the company to actually start lobbying and the revelations have also put pressure on the government, so moving the status quo got (even if only ever so slightly) easier.

Many people you will hear speak for these companies will actually feel passionately about this. It’s just that now is also the opportunity for them to do something.

  Many medium-sized businesses in Germany have already been banning any and all US online services for company use, but the revelations might increase their number even more, for example.

And I don't think it's limited to online services.

Cisco routers? Intel chips? Microsoft software? Suddenly just about every American technology product is about as suspicious (or even more so) than anything out of China.

I believe this whole sordid affair and especially the revelations about the subversion of protocols and possible back doors has tainted the US tech industry, possibly beyond repair.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

This is from the original U.S. Constitution, so we have always given ourselves the power to enforce laws outside of our jurisdiction.

...on "Piracies and Felonies", you forgot to say.

I somehow doubt you could call Pope or Merkel a "pirate" or "felon", but that's what its boiling down to. By spying on anyone US does not trust anyone because there is possibility others do the same thing...

Its like a looped liar syndrome. Someone who constantly lies does not believe other people because if he constantly lies then in his world it means everyone else does the same as well. Sick sick situation.

And what of it? The internet and cheap worldwide shipping/travel have made it easy to work around a lot of laws whose jurisdiction is limited by geography. A system where you can use gmail, google+, youtube, etc and be subject to Google "law" or use outlook.com, bing, etc and be subject to Microsoft "law" seems like the natural place to go from here. Google is even investing in walking robots and self-driving cars to use for enforcement already :D

Yep. When peoples' actions effortlessly cross national boundaries. laws that don't cross national boundaries quickly become irrelevant. First e-feudalism, then who knows what?

We're definitely entering e-feudalism. We need an e-revolution into e-democracy, whatever that looks like.

Probably select acceptance into online communities, while increasingly irrelevant nations worry about increasingly irrelevant tax revenue and your increasingly irrelevant physical location.

I mean, of course they're against this law because it's hurting their bottom line. But sometimes business interests and personal freedom align. I would say that data collection is bad for both the businesses and the people whose data is being collected, so a challenge by the companies is good for the people. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

> They're lobbying because the government surveillance revelations hurt their business model, not on principle.

That's fine - politicians are much more likely to take action on something because of the economic impact than due to any principle(s). Especially if it impacts their district...and the President's "district" is as big as they get.

In what way are their motivations relevant? You say yourself that you believe they are correct, why does anything else matter? If a bounty hunter arrests a murderer, does it matter that he's doing it because he has a financial motivation? If he were motivated only by the desire to do good would that change anything?

Because a parties motivation greatly affects possible outcomes. A bounty hunter's pay depends entirely on capture and return. You can be certain because of this their methods are going to be as effective and brutal as they can manage. A police officer gets paid if the suspect gets captured or not.

You can be sure if the American government manages to find a way they can properly compensate these companies for lost revenue and customers, they will cease to have any issue with it whatsoever.

> If he were motivated only by the desire to do good would that change anything?

Sure. It would change my mind completely if I knew Bush genuinely was deceived by those around him and thought there were WMDs, rather than if I thought he knowingly lied to pursue an agenda for other reasons (e.g. boosting Haliburton's stock, settling a score, etc). I only bring that up because it's something I feel strongly about, yet I feel the motivation could change everything in my mind.

Lack of trust is hurting tech companies bottom lines, that's very bad for them, it also makes a very strong motive for change; i think the influence of these guys is the only credible factor that can bring about a policy change in this area - that's because most of the public's apathy.

Change is not going to come from legislation; Republicans are all for strengthening of law and order, most reps for the Democrats will not challenge the official line; a secret court will also not challenge the issue, am I Missing anything here?

I think it is amazing that the administration is apparently ignoring the push, given that these companies are big campaign contributors. How can this be? If even big campaign contributors are given a cold shoulder then this might mean that the President is not inclined to budge, to put it mildly;

BTW; it seems CISCO and IBM were not present at the party, despite significant losses; how can this be ? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/445c67ce-4cb1-11e3-958f-00144...

So what did Obama say when they asked him to stop spying on us ?

No, we can't

The wait for disinterested, purely principled allies will be a long one. In the meantime, work with what you've got.

It's like nobody read the second half of my post. Yeah, we're better off for it if they effect change, and they're one of the few opportunities for it. I'd like if it happened, but I don't take their position seriously.

> But I am certain that the NSA has been lying about the scope of their collection and it's legality.

IF they are in bed with President and DOJ, if they are continuously doing favors to NSA, FBI, CIA and other three-letter agencies + black ops, then who is there to enforce some hundred years old document titled "we the people".

Further, even Obama himself was directly blackmailed by NSA. As you remember after Snowden revelations first thing before even denying or confirming his revelation, was that they remember getting request to spy on Obama. Since he has so much trouble with his own past, no wonder Obama will do whetever NSA wants.

Russell Tice, has said that he was aware while at the NSA, that the agency, back in 2004, was spying on Barack Obama, then just a Democratic Senate candidate from Chicago.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/01/is-nsa-spying-really-...

I also find this news disgusting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/13/1230832/-Obama-appo...

I am pretty confident that when the presidential candidate is selected, he is already being manipulated by the financial houses. They make sure that the president is weak pawn who can be easily manipulated. I am also sure that this has been the case for a while especially after JFK.

The reason that Obama is doing nothing, is because he is actually powerless to do anything - just a little puppet on a chain. To understand the underlying trend have a look at the last few presidents - and take a look at the financial laws that were repealed over time (like the glass steagal act).

One of the weaknesses in the US system is that the presidential post has so much power concentrated in it. Once you are able to get a stranglehold around this position, you can manipulate this from behind the scenes and no one will ever suspect that something is wrong.

Too bad this didn't happen before the elections happened. Not that I wanted Romney to win, but at the very least it would've forced the Democratic party to offer some candidates, too, and with any luck, actual changes to NSA spying would've arrived earlier, if it would've been a major issue during the campaign, when everyone is watching the debates.

But now we have to put up with Obama's dismissal, since he doesn't have much to lose himself, short of impeachment (which I think is warranted, especially if the Supreme Court ends up declaring the mass spying unconstitutional).

I, too, kind of wish that these revelations had taken place before the elections. Not that politicians promises mean anything, but a positive rhetoric is often the first step towards positive change.

I don't think that Obama should be impeached over this, though. These spying programs were started under the Bush White House, for one, and beyond that I don't think that impeachment is an appropriate response to this issue. The constant looming threat of privacy breaches is not something that can be corrected by assigning blame. Rather, we need broad laws to protect American citizens and corporations from being treated as potential terrorists.

Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent?

I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if the party would do so. I think had they, it would guarantee a failed election.

Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Party's support in his 2006 senatorial race by not being a Democrat. He ran as an independent and won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_elect...

It has happened four times (Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur), but three of them weren't elected president in the first place (got there via deaths) and all of them happened before party primaries were decided by voters.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lo...

> Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent?

The parties elect their candidates in a primary before putting them on the ballot in the general election. But parties don't like primaries: You have two of your own candidates saying bad things about each other in public, taking specific stances necessary to win a primary that may be disadvantageous in the general election, and using campaign money that could otherwise have been used against the other party in the general election.

So the result is that if the incumbent wants to run again, generally no one from the same party will be willing to mount a primary challenge, and anyone who does will raise the ire of other party members for causing trouble and wasting money. Hence the absurdly high incumbency rate.

That's exactly what I would have expected, which is why, I suppose, that it hasn't ever happened since primary voting became open to full registered party members.

> Too bad this didn't happen before the elections happened. Not that I wanted Romney to win, but at the very least it would've forced the Democratic party to offer some candidates, too, and with any luck, actual changes to NSA spying would've arrived earlier, if it would've been a major issue during the campaign, when everyone is watching the debates.

As a non-American, I don't see why the Republicans wouldn't do their best to pretend mass surveillance wasn't a problem, considering that they started it in the first place.

Why should they take anyone seriously? These articles and meetings are a nice bit of mutually beneficial PR fluffery but neither parties to these so called meetings cares. And why should they? The only thing a govt has to fear is its people. As usual, the people are not to be feared, hence they get the govt they deserve.

Traditionally it would be the Republicans who would help big business like this, wouldn't it? Democrats are more in bed with Hollywood. Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't going to cross the NSA.

Maybe your stereotypes don't help all that much. The guy who filed the suit against the NSA, aka the one that was recently vindicated, was filed by a Republican.

Most transparent administration ever. We can see right thru them.