HN user
PLEASE tell the world why it's so damn difficult to let non-US businesses use a payment service? We're dying to know.
Is it because of bullshit regulations everywhere? Why has it taken you forever to set up shop in a couple of places in Europe? Why not the rest too?
Seriously. What is it?
It is a massive fucking bully.
I think google is one of the few companies who have been fighting for the privacy rights of users
.. While happily shitting on their privacy behind their backs by giving a copy of all their communications to the NSA? -That kind of "fighting"?
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"?
Did they benefit from fighting the creeping police state in 2009? -Apparently not, because they didn't.
Do they benefit from fighting the creeping police state in 2013? -Apparently not, because they didn't - at least until there was that massive shitstorm blowing their way.
Again, if they considered fighting the police state to be in their interests, all of those companies would have done it long ago. Since they haven't, we can conclude that they don't, and therefore, if a massive shitstorm prompts them into doing damage control and pretending they give a fuck, that still doesn't amount to Doing The Right Thing. It only amounts to bullshitting us some more.
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.
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.
I often drop $39 on random Ruby, JavaScript, or web design ebooks.
I'm sure you do, but unlike me, you're rich. I practically never buy any books, but I'm interested in buying your guides.
When I first saw the $50, I was a bit disappointed and felt like it was expensive, especially for an independently published PDF.
Then I realized that I do want one reasonably bad, and that each book is potentially highly valuable, so I guess the $50 price can be considered justified. It's just that I'd like to buy several, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing so at that price point.
Your comments have repeatedly attacked the credibility of whistleblowers, derided their claims as factually and technically impossible, and asserted that NSA statements about NSA capabilities are wrong.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed tptacek's tendency to defend "The Establishment" at every turn, whatever naughtiness comes up. There he goes again. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some ties to the government.
I doubt your choice of browser matters in that regard.
So how do you plan to make money with this?
So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy?
But when their impossible-to-verify assertion is that they've done nothing wrong, you'll accept that just fine?
Page is clearly and unambiguously denying that Google supplies any information to the government on a millions-of-users scale.
Kind of like Mariano Rajoy insisted that Spain didn't need a bailout?
> it says in fact that they "won't integrate". It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you with all these generalities
Look no further than the recent events in Stockholm. This guy might be a bit extreme, but he does have a point.
> I trust Google more to fight for privacy of my data against the government, than any of those organizations.
Why?
> The point is, Google as a company opposes giving the data, it fights it tooth and nail. It does not have a policy of cuddling up to governments to curry favor by handing over data, and most of the NSA conspiracy theories are completely unfounded.
How do you know?
> May I ask why you have not doubled your rates?
Because they're not going to go in and cause a huge increase in revenues like Patrick does.
> Finance is like its own universe. The salaries for software are like nothing I've seen anywhere else.
That's because Finance is not grounded in Reality. Destroying the world's economies and the wealth of us little folks everywhere is massively lucrative, who knew?!
Is Workana only meant for people from the Americas?
I'm not sure which side you're trying to discredit.
> There is this idea among hackers that you should be able to trust Google, etc, to keep information private from the government. But that's not what privacy means in the context of the 4th amendment.
Do you think it's appropriate to evaluate the meaning of "privacy" through what a 200-year-old document says? Or do you think we might need to take the Internet into account too? Does privacy have anything to do with what laws say?
> Or are they being used to protect the financial system itself from us?
Posing this question suggests you've already arrived at the answer ("yes").
As much as I hate Facebook, it wasn't Facebook encouraging rape. It was whoever posted that picture, if even him. "Hate speech" is a non-issue. Everyone is free to ignore ideas they don't agree with, or perhaps even debate them. But it's not right to punish people for presenting ideas (no matter how idiotic they might be, or seem).
This is late, but do you remember how he got his mailing list off of HN? -He started an interesting experiment about starting a business from scratch, and planning to reach X thousand dollars of income per month in only a few months. "The Web-App Challenge" or something.
That was a very interesting project, so I signed up for updates. Not long after that, his e-mails started being mostly about selling ConvertKit to us, interspersed with useful(-looking?) articles. I can't help but feel like selling ConvertKit was his goal right from the start, and that the web app challenge was just a ruse to get us to receive his sales pitches. This is very clever, of course, but it's sleazy too.
> It's called democracy. It works pretty well in most countries.
Oh? How's Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" working out for you so far?
Getting the fuck out was a smart move. You did the right thing, don't worry about clueless sheeple bleating about how leaving "doesn't help". It does. It helps you, and possibly your family too.
> You don't get to define what is private for me or what privacy means for me
No, but I'm sure most people see privacy in a roughly similar way. You want control over what people know about you and your life, and control over who know it. This control is being taken away from us at every turn, no matter what we do online. Most people have no idea it's happening, but most of those who do, would prefer it.
You may be perfectly fine with losing your privacy, regardless of how you might personally want to define it, but most people aren't.
> the SEO industry is full of so much bullshit I have come to expect a lot of hate by association alone
So you don't think HN's view on SEO is unduly negative then, after all?
> I am OK with paying with my information.
To be more accurate, you're paying with your privacy. Of course, "information" does sound more pleasant.
Yes, that would be the one. The fact that it was opt-in is not relevant to him using it way too aggressively.
I've found it annoying how he's milking his mailing list (that he got off of HN publicity) for all it's worth. He used to hit us with a sales pitch basically every day, now it's only every 5 - 9 days or so.