TomWiley said:
http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/facebook-apple-google-microsoft-dropbox-and-yahoo-deny-participation-in-us-government-spying-program-prism/
This is just one example of course. It isn't very hard to find individual links to articles about Facebook, Google, Apple, all denying involvement or, in Apple's case even knowledge of the program. Now, this is more than likely because the FISA amendments act forbids that they disclose having received any such orders, let alone details if those orders. So being upfront and honest with their consumer base really only extends as far as the government will allow them. And I can think of at least one good reason that they would deny Skype being used for monitoring, it's even a patriotic one!
One thing I am curious about, and this is a legitimate question, is why if the program was mandatory for everybody, it seems to phase in different companies. Microsoft was the first, and according to the documents, Apple was only brought in a year ago. There's no sign that everyone was conscripted at once.
I'm sorry for the length. The moment international politics and classified surveillance programs can be whittled down into a children's picture book, I guarantee you'll be the first to know. And for the record, this one will indeed be even longer. Sorry. X.x
There is one aspect in particular I want to focus on, so I'm just going to briefly cover the rest; one, to say that the idea that allowing someone to disconnect a peripheral will completely destroy any interest in that peripheral is insane. Not only is it not difficult to understand, it's absurdly easy to dispute. Are you saying that if I keep a second controller in my storage cupboard, I'll forget it exists? Sure, I won't think of using it until a multiplayer game comes along that snags my interest, but if no such game ever comes along, is it because the controller isn't bolted to the console? Or because I haven't found something that justifies its use for me yet? Most certainly, if I own a second controller, or for that matter the Kinect, I'll be sure to look at any titles that could take advantage of it. Cause, you know, I paid for it. As I said, I can understand that reason being used to justify bundling it with every console, but it just doesn't extend to requiring it being connected at all times. The percentage of people who would throw out something that inflated the price of their console would be infinitesimal. Most people will understand that they should hold onto it, just in case some kick ass game does come out for it.
Second, anyone who sends sensitive information in an email deserves to have it compromised. I have friends who work in government who won't post any negative status updates about their job or department on Facebook, just in case. And although I know for a fact that my smart phone could be hacked at any time, that's balanced against the considerable convenience that it provides me. Same with email, even Facebook, as they provide considerable convenience in communication and of course social networking. With most of my family across the country, it's a quick and easy way to see photos and get updates. Short of never talking to them again, I really don't have a choice. To put it frankly, the Kinect- its mandatory connection, in any case- does not provide me enough benefits to outweigh it, and I do have alternative choices; the same would apply to, say, a Samsung Smart TV, The model with the built in WebCam that was revealed to have security vulnerabilities awhile back. Turns out, whoever hacked into that could turn the camera on whenever they pleased. And so I will use neither.
As for interest? With the device being sold as a living room all in one entertainment hub, with a microphone of considerable sensitivity, to say nothing for the camera of course, you can honestly say there will never, ever be any interest in exploiting it? Is your argument that Microsoft wouldn't allow it to happen, or that the government wouldn't want it anyway? Because you seem to be insisting on both.
Microsoft never asked for any of it And could never have fought it. The poor, helpless multibillion-dollar corporation. Is your defense seriously that Microsoft is just as much a victim as anyone else? In a world where it is All but a punchline that every major company has lobbyists in government, you're saying that there is zilch they could have accomplished? And if they were indeed entirely helpless, unable to resist, why are they resisting now that the public found out? Where has this pressure to the administration been for the past five years? Not just from Microsoft, but from anyone?
----
That last part brings us to what I wanted to focus on.
Now, as for the release of user data by these companies, I never said selling. When I say financially compensated, I literally mean that the costs of the process, whatever it may be, are covered by the government. So complying with the request, and making whatever efforts are necessary to share the information or allow easier access wouldn't cost these companies a penny, and the legal protection means any case brought against them by consumers for violating privacy would not hold water. National Security FTW.
This is contrasted by the alternative, i.e. fighting the program. The legal costs alone could prove sizeable, especially if such resistance had consequences in terms of the government's treatment of that company.
So this isn't about Machiavellian plots to make more money. This is quite simply taking the path of least resistance, choosing the option that costs the company less in time and funds.
Let's face it, that concept isn't strange at all. From outsourcing labor to undercutting employees' benefits, if something is cheaper, a company will usually do it, and complying with these requirements would indeed be cheaper and easier. Microsoft wasn't strong-armed, they weren't left without options. They just didn't want the inconvenience or cost of fighting it.
At least, before the leak occurred. This ties into what you said, because indeed it wouldn't be worth losing the publics Goodwill. But the public wasn't supposed to find out about this. Keep in mind that this involved a federal employee essentially destroying his own life to reveal this information. Last I heard, Snowden's stranded in a Russian airport hoping someone will provide him with asylum. He didn't sell this for $1 million, he's not living in the Bahamas. Not only has he had little personal gain, but he's pretty much lost everything. It's not the sort of thing any company anticipates, at least not seriously. I fully admit it, I sincerely doubt I would have the balls to do what he did.
Which brings us to Microsoft's recent actions, as you have said it, pressing the administration to allow it to release information and even reverse its requirements. Before the leaks, the most cost-effective route was to just go with it and provide whatever was requested, because the program's classified nature meant there was no public backlash. At worst, there'd be the occasional accusation that personal data was shared, but these scattered occurrences can be disarmed pretty easily, especially with that legal immunity. Which might explain five years of not so much as raising a protesting peep.
But now that it's out in the open and more than a few people are rabid, particularly in the international community, suddenly it's all about Fighting For The People. Because now it's cheaper, and safer, for them to play Champion of Freedom. In fact, mark my words, it's going to become all but a competition among the companies named in the program. They are going to be downright determined to look the most noble and self-sacrificing, because that's good PR.
Just like how when nobody is looking, Microsoft would send a 25 page cease-and-desist order to a teenager named Mike Rowe for using the domain mikerowesoft.com, But when that kid goes to the media and it starts to balloon into extremely negative PR, Microsoft changes tracks and generously give the kid a whole pile of stuff in exchange for the domain name. At the end of the day, they only did it because they realized they couldn't get away with bullying him.
Now, the only real ray of sunshine is that the leak might actually KEEP them from trying anything with the camera for awhile, so in the end, it indeed might not become a spybox after all! With everything out in the open, people are going to be watching them much more closely. But from the company's past actions, I honestly don't believe that they would have hesitated to make it available as a surveillance device if Snowden hadn't leaked the program's existence. This isn't nice and noble Microsoft. This is 'Oh God, We're Being Watched' Microsoft. And it's only going to last as long as they continue to be treated with suspicion.
So come on. Let us keep the hate train going. That way you can enjoy your Xbox One while we make sure that they don't take advantage of your unconditional trust.
----
I know, no pictures. So let me provide some last points.
-There is one very basic marketing gaffe that you haven't caught onto. If this is a make or break requirement, then individuals who would actually be inclined to wrap it in tinfoil or cover it with a towel... Let's face it, they're far more likely not to buy the thing at all. Is that so strange? There is a competing game console with comparable hardware, and many of the apps and online features Not available on that console will be available on the computer. Microsoft doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly on the market, so people who don't want the camera might just go and buy something else instead. So enjoy that reduced install base.
Basically, forgot the true universal solution; not buying it. That used to be the normal response when a product was deemed unsatisfactory. I must be falling behind these newfangled times where we Deal With It. Although it does make me wonder if someone is actually so desperate to play Halo, that they would actually buy it and cover it with a towel. God only knows there are probably people who are truly fanatical about it, but frankly not sure I want to share a server with them anyway.
-I would go as far to say that basing your view of a product entirely on what its manufacturer assures you, and denying any outside considerations because said company tells you 'Sall Good is stupid beyond all mortal ken. 'Gullible' doesn't begin to cover it.
-
-
-
-
To be fair, I should give you an idea as to why I think the way I do, but this post is ballooning as it is. So if you're still with me, I can explain in another post. First I'll just ask, how familiar are you with the details of what happened with the newest SimCity game?
