[vox_mollis]

concerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier.

I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft.

That said, assuming you're asking the question about MSFT: Microsoft has always been a lapdog of the Feds, as evidenced by handing over hotmail data simply from a pleasant LEA request, to centralizing and backdooring skype, to removal of the elephant diffuser, to jumping at the chance to join PRISM, to any number of chunks of evidence.

But now that data security is a marketable good (per Apple's example), MSFT feels the fiduciary duty to pretend to fight the Feds for profit.

Whenever a fundamentally evil actor gives a show of doing good, always follow the money.

[capote]

> I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft.

I have no idea why you're bringing up that you have no idea why he's bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft since the article is about Microsoft and the comment is about Amazon.

[gardano]

While I disagree with the tone of your comment, I would have to agree that Apple has made it a good and responsible action to oppose such open-ended Federal requests.

[s_q_b]

It was always morally good for the consumer.

Apple's stance may have tweaked the business incentives back in line with the moral good.

Apple has always been big on the idea that best way to alter behavior is to alter incentives.

[abiox]

while i'm decidedly unenthused by the amount of pro-MS dialog on HN, the premise of a business being "fundamentally evil" is rather dogmatic and not very conducive to discussion.

[simondedalus]

i'm not saying that microsoft is fundamentally evil, but don't you think it's problematic that the premise "business X is evil" is necessarily "dogmatic" or "not conducive to discussion"? i mean, specifically, what about the case where "business X is evil" happens to be true?

"what's evil? this is so subjective and [insert complaint]"

suppose an organization is committed to tricking the public, ripping off the government, committing crimes, gaining power at the expense of any idea of the public good... don't you think at least some people would be confident in thus concluding "business X is evil"?

again, regardless of microsoft's motives for litigation (which i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest are probably more nuanced and confidential than can be explained in a single article), shouldn't "business X is fundamentally evil; ie they are united in the pursuit of a criminal or publicly hazardous goal," be available for discussion? all the more if the speaker has evidence?

neutrality is great if you want to be level headed and find facts... but it can't be true by stipulation. that's just crazy, and truly "dogmatic and not very conducive to discussion". yeah, "x is evil" statements require more evidence, and more explanation of what you mean (because rando on the internet stating "x is evil" conveys pretty much no information at all), but they have to be admissable.

...unless you think it's somehow impossible for organizations to come together to pursue evil (by most standards) goals?

(and, again, not asserting that microsoft is evil myself, but didn't the karma-bombed author cite reasons that s/he found microsoft taking legal action to protect its customers dubious? if someone provides argument for a conclusion, and you--without even handwaving at a reason to dismiss their argument/evidence--dismiss her conclusion out of hand, aren't you doing some serious violence to intelligent discussion? you're expressly taking a discussion that had progressed to the point of thesis-with-argument back to bald-statements/opinions/theses... that's nothing to endorse)