[BoxFour]

> It’s not obvious that the government should have to power to overwrite this

The government shouldn’t be able to set the terms of its contracts with private companies and walk away if those terms aren’t acceptable? That seems like a stretch.

The constitution is a wildly different premise from government contracting with private companies.

[mlinhares]

There was no contract, the government wanted to have a contract where they'd be able to use the tool to violate privacy rights of its citizens and issue kill orders without a human present and the company said no.

The government shouldn't be able to coerce a business to do whatever it wants.

[BoxFour]

> There was no contract, the government wanted to have a contract where they'd be able to use the tool to violate privacy rights of its citizens and issue kill orders without a human present and the company said no.

So the contract process worked. The seller wanted certain clauses, the buyer rejected them, and the deal didn’t happen.

Setting aside the supply chain risk designation, which I already said was an extreme overreaction, this is basically how it’s supposed to work.

> The government shouldn't be able to coerce a business to do whatever it wants.

Governments coerce businesses all the time to do what the government wants. Taxes are the obvious example, but there are many others like OFAC sanctions lists or even just regular old business regulations.

It mostly works because we rely on governments to use that power wisely, and to use it in a way that represents the wishes of the populace. Clearly that assumption is being tested with the current administration and especially in this particular situation, but the government coerces businesses to do what they want all the time and we often see it as a good thing.