[CPLX]

It’s not true in a trivial sense it’s true in a deep and legally relevant sense. The company is a major accomplice in the blatantly illegal mass surveillance of Americans.

This isn’t like a big conspiracy theory people have won Pulitzer Prizes over it and all that.

It’s a completely reasonably inference that this person advocating for fewer restrictions on a powerful new technology is hoping to use it to conduct more sophisticated mass surveillance on Americans.

As I said, nothing could be more substantive to this thread.

[yanderekko]

It sounds like you're arguing that these government programs are "criminal enterprises", which would be a much deeper problem if the legal system can't weed them out.

Even were that the case, it's unclear to me that merely providing material aid to a criminal government organization would make a company a "criminal enterprise".

Perhaps uncharitably, this seems akin to arguments that would condemn a large share of contractors involved in military / police / intelligence work as "criminal".

[CPLX]

Yes members of government who routinely break the law and those who further those efforts are engaged in criminal enterprise.

Yes of course the inability of the legal system to deal with it is a deep problem.

My argument is that people who break the law are criminals. It’s not a subtle point I’m making here.

The only point of confusion seems to be your surprise to discover that people with power commit crimes openly and with impunity.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtL6kbYiP-w

[yanderekko]

A lot of people similarly claim that the 2020 election was stolen, aided and abetted by a criminal conspiracy. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't agree with those claims, and it wouldn't stem from a skepticism of the base notion that "people with power commit crimes openly and with impunity".

In any case, even when illegal government programs exist it's again unclear to me what sort of due diligence a contractor would have to make to avoid being labeled as a "criminal organization". Similarly, a lot of people consider soldiers who fought in Iraq to be murderers, and I see the point but it would come off as confusing in a normal conversation about a particular person to just casually label them as a murderer because of this.

[CPLX]

Yes some people claim things that aren’t true. Others, conversely, make true statements.

I am pleased that all in this discussion have now demonstrated such a rigorous grasp of the obvious.

To your more specific point, my first recommendation for government contractors who wish to avoid being labeled as a “criminal organization” would be to avoid repeatedly and blatantly committing crimes.

[yanderekko]

Yes, well, I still can't help but find it odd that such "blatant" crimes are apparently the reach of the legal system. My prior under the circumstances is that the claims are overblown, eg. "Iraqi soldiers are murderers" or "all contractors that aided the US intelligence apparatus belong to criminal organizations".

[CPLX]

This conversation is really confusing.

Has there ever been an era in American history where there aren’t private entities with high government officials as allies who engage in organized criminal activity to further our international trade interests while avoiding consequences?

Not sure if you’re a history buff, but…

[yyyk]

>legally relevant sense >blatantly illegal mass surveillance

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

It may be illegal, but this is not legally relevant at the moment.