[white_devil]

> This is, I think, the only way for these tech giants to come out of this scandal better off than they went in -- to take a stand, and take the fight to the feds, hard.

This is a PR-stunt, nothing more. Google could have "challenged" any and all gag-orders even before PRISM was leaked.

Was giving NSA wholesale access to user data bad in 2009? -Why not challenge that shit in 2009? Gag-orders getting in the way? -Well why not challenge those in 2009 then?

I guess they were too busy extolling the virtues of being Open and Transparent: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html - that's December 2009, with PRISM in place for almost a year. Fucking scumbags.

[veidr]

I'm not as emotionally invested as you seem to be in whether Google is good or bad. It's a corporation, so I assume they will do whatever they can to make money, and will be generally okay with fucking people over if needed, especially if not many people will know about it. Just like Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and everybody else on that scale.

So why didn't they challenge it in 2009? Probably because there wasn't that much in it for Google, since wasn't a big national shitstorm blowing that way. But now there is. That is the point I am making.

So, now, Google could serve their own corporate interests by fighting hard against the rise of the secret police. Would that make Google an awesome person? No, it would still be a selfish corporate entity trying to get money, just like it always has been

But, it would (rightly) be perceived as a force for good, on the right side of this particular battle with tyranny. That would help you, me, America, and the world... but it would also help Google, it would seem.

And some of these other "fucking scumbags" (which I assume is your term for "corporations acting normally"), like Apple, Yahoo, etc., might be encouraged to do likewise.

In other words, it takes public outrage to create the shitstorm (which you will have noticed is in the mainstream media, not just nerd forums like this one), but once the outrage is in place, that helps align the interests of corporate behemoths like Google with what you and I would probably agree is Good (i.e., not having fucking secret police using secret laws to evade the control by the citizens of the nation).

[white_devil]

I'm well aware that they're all just huge corporations going after their own interests. That's beside the point. You seemed to be commending Google on "taking the fight to the feds, hard", and I just wanted to point out that there's no reason to commend them.

> So why didn't they challenge it in 2009? Probably because there wasn't that much in it for Google, since wasn't a big national shitstorm blowing that way. But now there is. That is the point I am making.

Yes. I'm also well aware that corporations engage in damage control only when it's necessary. But again, there's no reason to commend them for doing precisely that, especially when that's all this is about.

>>> So, now, Google could serve their own corporate interests by fighting hard against the rise of the secret police. Would that make Google an awesome person? No, it would still be a selfish corporate entity trying to get money, just like it always has been >>> But, it would (rightly) be perceived as a force for good, on the right side of this particular battle with tyranny. That would help you, me, America, and the world... but it would also help Google, it would seem.

Even in 2009, all those huge corporations were well aware of the "rise of the secret police", because all of them were either already participating in PRISM, or in the process of being strong-armed into doing so. Had they perceived fighting this kind of evil to be in their own self-interest, they would have done it right from the start. They could even have joined their forces in opposing the government, but they chose to remain silent. Not a word about the systematic raping of people's privacy all over the world.

PRISM was just as evil in 2009 as it is now, and taking a stand against evil was the right thing to do in 2009, just like it is now. Parading around as some kind of paragon of corporate virtue while secretly shitting all over your users' privacy, on the other hand, was something that only Google did. Also, if a highly intelligent bunch of people running a powerful corporation is interested in fighting the rise of the secret police, it'll be aware that's something that should be done right away instead of after waiting around for several years for the situation to get even worse.

Google can't be rightly seen as a "force for good", no matter how eagerly you swallowed their disingenuous PR-bullshit about the joys of being Open back in 2009.

>>> but once the outrage is in place, that helps align the interests of corporate behemoths like Google with what you and I would probably agree is Good (i.e., not having fucking secret police using secret laws to evade the control by the citizens of the nation).

It's important to realize that they've already proven they simply don't give a fuck. As long as they're making pleasantly massive piles of money and their armies of lawyers are keeping their taxes low, they're quite happy with the Status Quo. Don't think Google gives a fuck or even thinks it can change anything. Don't think it even wants to change anything.

[declan]

You're asserting without evidence that FedGov had or has "wholesale access" to user data. This is a false assertion.

Google's legal brief filed yesterday cites the "PRISM" flap, and false allegations like yours, as justification for being able to lift the gag order. They didn't have as strong an argument two weeks ago.

[white_devil]

You are asserting that my assertion is false. It's just as convincing for me to then assert that your assertion that my assertion is false is false.

> Google's legal brief filed yesterday cites the "PRISM" flap, and false allegations like yours, as justification for being able to lift the gag order. They didn't have as strong an argument two weeks ago.

Oh? How about fighting against gag orders because they're unconstitutional and immoral to begin with? How's that for a "justification" for lifting one? Worse than "PRISM flap" and "allegations"?