@bashrc
link
416d

They don’t really have a choice about whether to cooperate. Or rather the choice is one of cooperate or be shut down.

poVoq
link
216d

And lose all their jucy defense and national security contracts…

@0x6b
link
416d

More nuanced than what I care to here.

Simply put - yes, they should help with national security. But requests should be transparent and heavily scrutinised so it can’t be misused.

Salamander
link
315d

They should cooperate with a concrete investigation. The specifics should be divulged to the person in charge of providing the help.

I do not think that they should add secret backdoors to give intelligence agencies direct access or log user data “just in case” said data turns out to be helpful in the future for national security.

Azure
link
113d

They should cooperate with national governments in matters of information security (you know, reporting vulnerabilities and getting fixes out.)

They should not cooperate with signals intelligence unless legally compelled. There should be none of this ‘voluntary cooperation with the authorities’ nonsense. It subverts the entire idea of protection from search and seizure.

krolden
link
2
edit-2
16d

It would be better to ask “should I give up my fourth amendment rights because a tech company decided to share information with a government because they said it was for national security?”

technology ought to seek to be trustless compliance-free

@PP44
link
216d

Is it a political/moral question ? Or a question about the world as it is.

Today, most tech giants are from the USA, and from what I understand the patriot act pretty much force any of them to cooperate as soon as it is asked.

If you ask me what I think it should be like, it’s different. I think it is a great power and responsibility, that should only be given to a democratic power, in the most radical meaning of “democratic”. In my opinion, there is no currently established state that deserve this power. So I don’t think they should

Now if this is a very practical question about what I would do if I had to make that choice for a specific case, it would heavily depend on the case and the risks I face. If it was to work against a fascist action of any sort, I would cooperate. If it was against someone close to me politically and I was confident enough that I could be safe, I would not cooperate.

@ree
link
115d

i guess the solution is to build tech with zero knowledge of your users action and identity.

10_0
link
216d

If they legally have to, yes.

@DPUGT2
link
116d

What is “national security”? Given the nature of these forums, some might find it objectionable but I can think of no better examples: Soviet spies have infiltrated X, and they’re using Apple software to pass secrets back to Moscow on the Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.

Is it even then a question of “should”? It’s really a matter of “they will, or else”.

Of course, such cases rarely come up anymore, if they ever did. Nowdays, it’s “dumbass terrorist already shot up a nightclub, died, and now the FEEBs want Apple to unlock their cellphone even though the threat is over”. Even supposing that the phone has pertinent information, and that they had accomplices still alive and planning more shootings… how is that a national security matter? Should the terrorists succeed, how is national security impacted? Will nukes rain down on Washington DC unless Apple cooperates? Will secret yakuza ninjas implode the US economy with well-timed stock manipulation?

Just the fact that it’s the FBI criminal division investigating says that it’s not a matter of national security. Maybe if it were their counter-intelligence unit (but then we’re back to the “it’s not a should but a they will or else” thing).

Here’s a thought: It’s not 1978 anymore. Corporations are so much more international than they were back then (and they were pretty international even then). If Apple should cooperate with the government of the United States to protect its national security, should it cooperate with France to protect France’s national security? If not, then why? And if they should, does that not hold true for all nations nowdays? Supposing that Apple is US-based, and loyalty to the US comes first, there still aren’t any officially recognized enemies (save perhaps North Korea) for whom they’d have to pick and choose. This means they have to cooperate with all nations on Earth, more or less equally, but to the detriment of none. Which then wraps around to “it’s all about terrorism” since those are the only enemies left that doesn’t pit one nation against another.

You’re really asking: Should technology companies rat out dissidents and troublemakers for governments that are irritated with these dissidents and troublemakers (because those people get labeled “terrorists” by their respective governments)? They will, because to do otherwise is to lose business advantage

@OsrsNeedsF2P
link
116d

Governments need to be held accountable - So no.

GadgeteerZA
link
115d

Which is why it is usually executed through a court order…

@0x6b
link
116d

More nuanced than what I care to here.

Simply put - yes, they should help with national security. But requests should be transparent and heavily scrutinised so it can’t be misused.

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive
  3. Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
  4. not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 users online
  • 33 users / day
  • 154 users / week
  • 376 users / month
  • 710 users / 6 months
  • 2.56K subscribers
  • 884 Posts
  • 11K Comments
  • Modlog