Zuckerberg, Nadella and Other Executives Ask Senate to Restrain NSA Spying

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/zuckerberg-nadella-ask-senate-to-restrain-nsa-spying.html

by T-A • 12 years ago

83 41 12 years ago

bloomberg.com

Nux• 12 years ago

Awww, good guys Zuckerberg and Nadella. I wonder what they're really after.

astrange• 12 years ago

We're only playing into their secret plan to not spy on us.

cryoshon• 12 years ago

I really wish the people with a lot of money from the tech sector would be more passionate and incendiary when they address the government regarding reeling in the NSA. Unveiled political threats such as funding candidates who oppose incumbents siding with the NSA would also be quite helpful, I think.

You can easily write off a citizen (read: serf) with passion and aggressive language to lobby the government, but it's much harder to ignore a superstar who is funding your campaign and has a large and powerful corporation.

rayiner• 12 years ago

You act as if citizens (read: serfs) are on the same side, being ignored by a senate just looking for campaign donations.

This time last year, a majority of Americans supported the NSA program: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190638738/pew.... Only this year did the polls shift: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/20/poll-..., with a significant but not overwhelming 53-40 against the program. And as always, keep in mind that these are polls of the public--actual voters skew older and more conservative.

A better way to frame the situation that doesn't distort it all to hell might be that the tech sector educating Congress about the economic issues might help tip a consensus that's still pretty deadlocked in the public when you look at actual voters.

BrokenEnso• 12 years ago

I'd imagine a banner at the top of Facebook for eveyone geoloc in US say to vote for reps that don't support an unchecked US intel would get noticed by everyone on the hill.

JTon• 12 years ago

Playing the devils advocate here: I'd imagine even a superstar takes on a sizeable amount of risk when they oppose a large and powerful organization (i.e. NSA). An individual is an easy target regardless of wealth, no? I think a wealthy individual must be just as passionate and willing to fight as his/her less wealthy counterpart

ProAm• 12 years ago

Dont expect a person's opinion to change when their paycheck depends on them having said opinion.

MichaelAO• 12 years ago

Link to actual letter: https://www.reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/USAFreedomAct

peterkelly• 12 years ago

I notice they got Drew Houston rather than Condoleezza Rice to sign on behalf of Dropbox.

justizin2• 12 years ago

Oh, they didn't just go to the press and declare Ed Snowden a traitor for hurting their business?

pkinsky• 12 years ago

No, that was a certain well known VC.

jjoonathan• 12 years ago

I thought that was Marc Andreessen?

justizin2• 12 years ago

I was snarking at Andreesen, who is being a baby.

spankalee• 12 years ago

Because the headline might be misleading by leaving this out, it's not just Zuckerberg and Nadella.

The full list:

  Tim Armstrong, AOL
  Tim Cook, Apple
  Drew Houston, Dropbox
  Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook
  Larry Page, Google
  Jeff Weiner, LinkedIn
  Dick Costolo, Twitter
  Satya Nadella, Microsoft
  Marissa Mayer, Yahoo!

aiiane• 12 years ago

Yeah, I found it a bit odd the specific selections of both CEOs and companies named - especially given that the CEOs in the headline, the named companies in the article, and the named CEOs in the article are all different sets.

tlrobinson• 12 years ago

Almost identical to the list of PRISM companies.

jmgrosen• 12 years ago

I don't think that's a coincidence -- they didn't want to participate, and now that it's out there, it's hurting their bottom line.

psbp• 12 years ago

It's funny to see sites highlight specific CEOs. It seems to say something about their viewpoint or possibly their target demographic.

badsock• 12 years ago

Dropbox, who appointed Condoleezza Rice to their board, asked the US government to restrain their spying?

balls187• 12 years ago

All companies that engage in highly sophisticated data mining.

deciplex• 12 years ago

Drew Houston, Dropbox

Oh that's precious. They could go a long way to curbing NSA spying themselves by not appointing one of the most prolific apologists for warrantless wiretapping, to their fucking board of fucking directors.

Then they can sign off on this.

dang• 12 years ago

Thanks for pointing that out; changed title to be less misleading.

ethana• 12 years ago

Hurting their bottom lines? I thought it'd be sooner.

abraxasz• 12 years ago

"None of the executives who signed the letter are scheduled to appear at today’s Senate hearing. Witnesses on the agenda include Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole, NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett and FBI Deputy Director Mark Giuliano."

The lineup they have is hilarious. It probably went something like:

- [senate] James, do you think we should end mass surveillance

- [Cole] No

- [senate] Dick, whaddya think?

- [Ledgett] Nope, it's allright

- [senate] Ok, Mark?

- [Giuliano] Meh, nah, I think we're fine

- [senate] Well then, after extensive consultation with all interested parties, blablabla

(I know, I know, it's way overboard, I don't believe it myself, but that's the first thing that came to mind when I read the quote, and I had a good laugh)

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

That's exactly what's going to happen. In fact, they already held a very similar hearing right after the Snowden leaks, and it was all about praising the NSA.

znowi• 12 years ago

The lineup they have is hilarious.

The request by the PRISM companies is just as hilarious as the hearing. A good show for the public to "commemorate" the one-year anniversary of the Snowden leaks.

dontmindifido• 12 years ago

As someone not from the US, it's always interesting to see the focus on US rights with the rest of the world almost an afterthought. In my mind it seems a lot less altruistic viewed under that lens.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

Google, meanwhile, actually acts to restore trust by putting our emails out of the reach of orders by secret courts.

As long as laws have secret interpretations and security agencies have exclusive access to rubber-stamp secret courts, the laws can't be trusted.

afarrell• 12 years ago

The problem with only changing the law is that you are still going to have federal judges issuing secret rulings "rubber stamping" data collection.

The real problem isn't that the courts are rubber stamps, its that nobody checks the courts work. Yes, I know the FISA court approves the vast majority of requests. Most judges approve the vast majority of requests. That doesn't mean they are rubber stamps; It means that DAs and investigators normally work hard to get their ducks in a row before asking for a warrant. These judges are human, so they make mistakes issuing warrants. Investigators are human, so they make mistakes (or "mistakes") staying within the bounds of the warrant. Then a defendant get brought in and their defense attorney sees the evidence against their client was improperly gathered. They file a Motion to Suppress and the judge or investigator is rebuked. If denied suppression, they can file an appeal and it can go to as far as the Supreme Court.

Why is the FISA court a rubber stamp? Nobody checks their work. Why does nobody check their work? There are no suppression hearings on data gathered via PRISM because the data isn't used as evidence for a prosecution.

Aqueous• 12 years ago

Translation: Zuckerberg and Nadella score points for pretending to give a shit about NSA surveillance and users' privacy, and all of us are callously manipulated into giving them props.

Conveniently, especially for Zuckerberg, the narrative implied here exactly counteracts the previous narrative implied about their companies: that they do not, in fact, give a shit.

And all they had to do was write a letter!

rhizome• 12 years ago

I'm guessing $120MM didn't get lodged against the USA Freedumb Act.

thetigris• 12 years ago

I would rather give all my info to the Government than to these corporate giants. Since when did they start caring about their users ? Until they change themselves, what's the point, oh right, CEO's have to be in news what else will they do in their free time!

adventured2• 12 years ago

The difference is, you have a right to not use Facebook, Google, Bing, Skype, WhatsApp, Twitter, iTunes, Gmail, Hotmail, et al.

And there are countless ways to evade Google's ability to ad track you, easily in fact.

The government is not asking permission, and you have no rights as far as privacy is concerned these days. None at all. You are automatically opted in. You may not opt out.

What exactly has Google ever done to you or anybody? The US Government sprayed black communities in St. Louis with radiation in the 1950s to see what would happen. Let's see you top that one example, and I've got a hundred more. What has Facebook done to you? The US Government has killed thousands of civilians around the world in the last decade via droning. The US Government invaded Iraq under false pretenses just so the military industrial complex could have a sandbox to play in. The US Government was responsible for allowing slavery for a century, preventing women from voting, and preventing blacks from voting. The US Government systematically killed off Native American tribes. The US Government killed hundreds of thousands in the illegal Vietnam war. The US Government used depleted uranium shells in the Gulf War, causing thousands to fall sick with Gulf War Syndrome; and then they tried to cover it all up and deny those vets treatment. The US Government has been committing coups in South America for decades. The US Government nuked Japan twice, all just to indirectly threaten Russia.

Your turn to list examples of all the evil these big bad companies have committed.

fdsary• 12 years ago

This is bull shit, isn't it? These companies business models are based on surveillance, but people don't understand that. What people do understand is when gov's do surveil them.

But it's the same. I say encrypt your communications, and pull the rug under both Zuck and the NSA.

aaronchriscohen• 12 years ago

The only reason Big Tech is against the NSA now is because their most valuable customers are eyeing foreign competitors based in countries with actual privacy laws. I talk to clients all the time who want their data stored in Luxembourg or Switzerland or Iceland. MSFT, Google, FB, et al. were totally content to sell out the American public and aide the creation of a surveillance state as long as they profited from it.

ed_blackburn• 12 years ago

Presumably if/when American companies start loosing business to companies based in more perceived more liberal and pro-privacy focused administrations i.e. Germany, then the US govt. may take this seriously.

Similarly the UK economy is a services based, if organisations can't trust UK based services because of spying then the UK govt. may re-consider wire-tapping.

As always. Money. Talks.

xkarga00• 12 years ago

That's really funny

Zuckerberg, Nadella and Other Executives Ask Senate to Restrain NSA Spying

Related Stories