[dmix]

Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds.

It's so important that these leaks go public for two critical reasons:

1) with that type of financial regulatory environment for public companies, the only way to create incentives for that type of consumer protection play is when it has monetary consequences if they do nothing (customers shutting down their accounts)

2) court docs from an earlier Yahoo trial in a secret court were already released when the NSA requested a huge trove of emails and Yahoo challenged it. I read the judges ruling and the TLDR is that the judge said the customers will never know their email is being read so how can you claim that a privacy violation has occurred?

The twisted logic here is that there's no damage to the customer/company as long as the intrusion is conducted in total secrecy.

So that's why Yahoo is so willing to fold here. This is what they are dealing with.

Side note: Imagine the same logic was applied to police a search warrant that allowed police to enter hundreds of houses, a type of warrant that could never be challenged by these homeowners defence attorneys. "They'll never know police broke into their house and went through all of their drawers and personal belongings. They'll come home the next day and everything will seem exactly. the same. So what claim to privacy violation could do they have?"

The need for secrecy in FISA courts goes well beyond protecting state secrets like NSA tech. This type of judicial rationalization would never withstand scrutiny in open courts which is why total secrecy is the key.

[snowwrestler]

> Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds.

Will this meme never die on HN? There is an obvious counter-example: Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.

The idea that "maximizing shareholder value" is some sort of inescapable Faustian bargain is just not supported by the facts. People who run corporations might choose to act unethically, in order to maximize a certain outcome, but they are not forced to do so by the mere fact of running a for-profit corporation.

To the extent there is a structural problem in public corporations, it is one of executive incentive, not shareholder obligation.

[dmix]

> Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.

The FBI went public with the case, not Apple... and the warrant was signed by a public criminal courts judge not a FISA court. That's a critical difference. There are no examples of successful challenges to NSLs, don't downplay the seriousness of doing so.

"Going public" is not really an option for the stuff we're talking about (as the Yahoo case I mentioned made clear, the whole warrant is predicated on secrecy ). If they do they could face serious financial penalties or face their CEOs going to jail where yes shareholder value will take a hit. The markets are very sensitive to large lawsuit liability and CEO changes.

So I don't see how you could challenge these laws as a public corporation without knowing full well you will damage the share value.

Their obligation to maintaining the stock value is only part of the issue here. You're expecting these businesses to be heroic martyrs when the state has stacked the chips extremely high against them. There's no question who is responsible for this mess.

Yet the US is on track to vote in another president whose primary national security strategy on her website is to expand NSA power and increase domestic and foreign intelligence gathering.

Four more years!

[leesalminen]

> Yet the US is on track to vote in another president whose primary national security strategy on her website is to expand NSA power and increase domestic and foreign intelligence gathering.

Scary indeed

[tanderson92]

> > Maximizing shareholder value is like a death grip that squeezes any public corporation into not making financial gambles on ethical grounds.

> Will this meme never die on HN? There is an obvious counter-example: Apple, a public corporation who publicly fought a similar request.

This is a poor example to use to disprove the claim; Apple used the FBI encounter to prove to customers that they were tough on security, a component of their value proposition to a segment of the customer base.

[snowwrestler]

"Maximizing shareholder value" has become like a Rorschach test, or a "just-so" story that people try to use to retroactively explain everything.

Why didn't Yahoo fight their order? Maximizing shareholder value.

Why did Apple fight their order? Maximizing shareholder value.

An explanation that applies to all outcomes does not actually explain anything.

[tanderson92]

Regardless of the merit of your claim, it remains the case that the provided example is ineffective.

There were many earlier this year that said standing up to the FBI improved their perception in foreign markets.

[dwaltrip]

Apple is also the most profitable company in the history of the world. So, they have more ability than most to fight something like that.

[cerebellum42]

>I read the judges ruling and the TLDR is that the judge said the customers will never know their email is being read so how can you claim that a privacy violation has occurred?

What?! That's like saying my home wasn't actually burgled until I arrive home to see that it was, absolutely ridiculous

[mr_spothawk]

schrodingers spooks

[bambax]

> the TLDR is that the judge said the customers will never know their email is being read so how can you claim that a privacy violation has occurred?

Really? A judge really said that? So if I place a camera in my neighbors' bathroom, and they never find out about it, everything's okay? Does it work with other crimes? If I steal millions from a company, but they never figure it out because their accounting department is sub-par, then I'm fine??

[ArkyBeagle]

Running a huge legal risk is not consonant with maximizing shareholder value.