[jessespears]

The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.

[moxious]

Yes, that could happen. But there's the Spider-Man Rule: "with great power comes great responsibility".

They're running a major international media outlet over there, and they do have some pretty heavyweight responsibilities that come with that, even if it conflicts with their personal lives.

[jasonkostempski]

Its unreasonable to expect people to make life changing decisions based on nice sounding but ultimatley meaningless phrases.

[moxious]

You're only observing how we're caught in this trap, you're not providing any constructive way out.

Sure, it's unreasonable to expect this of people. It's also unreasonable for the government to expect they'll help in spying on their customers. It's also unreasonable for the government to do this in the first place.

Everything's unreasonable. Someone has to step...the...fuck...up. And the government has demonstrated it won't be them.

Who does that leave? Would it be better to kick back, admire the problem, and simply let things continue as they are?

[jakubp]

You aren't providing one [constructive way out] either. It's not Twitter's or any other company's fault, yet you want them to pay the price in form of risk. Why don't you pay it yourself?

[moxious]

Well, no one can prove what they'd do if they were in this situation. But I can't pay this cost for twitter, because the government hasn't asked this of me.

I don't believe they'd go to jail though. I do believe they'd cause an utter shitstorm for themselves personally and professionally though, but that they'd get a lot of attention to the matter and come out the other side OK. I can think of at least 5 non-profits who would jump to pay their legal costs, just to be in the battle and stick it to the government if this sort of thing ever came up.

What do you think the real consequences of standing up to the government are? Publicity is mostly my bet. Note that if we're dealing with the CEO of twitter, hustling him off to a secret prison somewhere with no trial isn't an option, as that's the same as setting off a big media bomb.

But you know, nobody wants to be inconvenienced, and it is a risk, so I suppose many people feel that's adequate justification for twitter to do nothing and keep serving punch to the crowd.

[jakubp]

Right. So I think you and I agree on some element of responsibility and that it feels too convenient for those companies to just say "sorry, there is nothing we can do". On the other hand, I think it's clear now how things generally play out behind the scenes, so at leats we as users of those services can either stop using them entirely, or seek alternatives that are hosted overseas (relative to US) and where US jurisdiction is weaker. That would secure us a bit as individuals, but it does nothing for the big picture. I don't see a clear way out.

[duggan]

No, they're providing the only ethical way out.

This is the responsibility that comes with the wealth and power acquired by using other people's personal information.

Particularly for citizens of a nation whose leadership is now treading a familiar historical path.

[Gargoyle]

They're being paid a great deal of money on the theory that their jobs have a lot of responsibility. If they choose to ignore whatever parts of that responsibility they can get away with, perhaps they don't actually deserve that compensation after all.

[coldtea]

... and from super-hero comic-books at that.

[nebabyte]

Life isn't fiction.

[Domenic_S]

Howcome?

[oneubauer]

I think it's unfair to expect that.

Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected.

Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don't know what will come of it.

[apatters]

That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

[morgante]

Do you think the government wouldn't throw Zuckerberg in jail?

[apatters]

They might, but he'd have better odds than your average Joe (and certainly a better legal team).

"With great power comes great responsibility" isn't just a line from a movie. Of course we can choose not to hold our leaders to high expectations, but that leads to a markedly worse world for the rest of us.

[argonaut]

> virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

This makes no sense.

[benevol]

> Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected.

Except for Snowden. America gave him the middle finger.

[brokenmachine]

He's applauded by many.

[bad_user]

Just as many consider him a traitor.