loginalready

I suppose the big empty space on the right is where "Respects users' privacy in their own business practices" should be.

But of course this is only about the Big Bad Government.

It's an interesting cultural difference how privacy suddenly becomes in issue in the US now that it's about the government, and totally fine when people were being tracked an profiled for profit.

"They abandon their principle that code is free speech by suggesting that some code needs to be regulated."

Typical false dichotomy of libertarian extremist. Speech is regulated all the time, based on intent or effect (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), and the formal protection of free speech is a regulation in itself. (Much like, hey, Net Neutrality.)

One typical sign of extremism is calling everybody that applies thought or nuance unprincipled.

Although Merkel is just being opportunistic, I'm optimistic that, like with ACTA, we are slowly seeing that the complete sell-out of European civil rights to US interests is no longer politically sustainable.

Whether they mean it or not, the fact that the staunchest supporters of the US feel the political need to speak out is significant in itself.

The US has gone a bridge to far by treating the citizens of a friendly nations as the enemy.

If that's eyeroll-inducing, you haven't been paying attention the past decade. Or even the past few weeks.

Virtually every negative effect the likes of RMS and the FSF have predicted when it comes to not using free software has come true.

There's nothing strange about encouraging people to avoid non-free solutions.

I'm far from a fundamentalist when it comes to free software, but I'm glad someone is still paying attention and reminds me of the consequences.

I'm surprised that on HN people cannot distinguish between Netflix business need to use DRM in their content delivery system (which is undesirable but defensible), and Netflix nefarious scheming to break the open web in order to make that an easier delivery system for DRM-ed content.

It's like defending a company that wants to dump toxic waste into our drinking water with the argument "well, they have to leave it somewhere".

Screw that. They want to use DRM, fine. But not at the expense of a free and open web.

This isn't about DRM. This isn't about copyright. This isn't even about greed. This is about power and control.

It's really really sad that once again denial is the top comment on HN with the truth starting us in the face.

How on earth is this kind of discrimination not conscious, when the only difference in a written resume is the assumption that the person is female?

As far as I know, the US is the only country where sugar-free soda is referred to as "diet".

The notion that it would help lose weight is totally new to me, I'm presuming that is because most countries outside the US would never allow it to be marketed that way.

It's not Russia that doesn't let him leave the airport, it's the US by revoking his passport in a clear violation of human rights.

No country on the planet can just let him pass the border without violating it's own laws. This is exactly why revoking his passport is such a disgusting move that violates all common decency.

If there was ever one specific moment in history in which the US changed from a flawed democracy to a totalitarian state, it's the moment they took Snowden's passport.

The fact that people are not prepared to stand alone doesn't mean they don't care about privacy.

Very few people are in a position to make a difference alone, and even fewer dare to act. There's only one Snowden.

The rest of us, we vote, support civil liberties organisations, sign petitions, and the most active amongst us lobby and demonstrate.

The notion that the way to change things is by individual sacrifice, and if we don't we obviously don't care enough, is an fundamentalist libertarian fantasy.

The real world doesn't work that way. Real people don't work that way. At least 99% of us don't.

The headline is surprisingly understated, where usually the opposite is the case.

After reading the article, the headline might as well have been "Microsoft handed the NSA the keys to friggin' everything."

The tin-foil hat conspiracy theory of the NSA having a backdoor in every Windows system on the planet suddenly doesn't seem that far fetched anymore.

Protest. Lobby. Seek publicity. Take the government to court. Put up a fight.

Note that when the EU data retention directive (which is often used here under the header "see, others are doing it to", even though it doesn't even come close to what the NSA does) was initiated, that's exactly what many telecom providers and ISP's did, before and after this came into affect. It didn't stop it, but it least it has brought it out into the open, making it an (still ongoing) public issue.

The remarkable part of what's happening in the US is the utterly quiet and extremely forthcoming complicity of major companies who otherwise don't seem to have any problem throwing a lot of resources at manipulating governments foreign and domestic.

And in the case of Microsoft, in it's monopolists heydays, even up to the point of structurally breaking the law.

Also, it's not like they are only quiet about it because the law tells them so: they actively deny it, hell, they even advertise with pure lies about the privacy of their services.

These companies aren't victims anymore. They are complicit.

Lastly, it should be quiet obvious that with absolutely no restriction in the wiretapping of foreign nationals, they are breaking the law in every country they do business in. Those foreigners, like myself, have no voice in US legislation.

From my perspective as a non-American, Microsoft is complicit in a full frontal attack on our civil liberties. We can't stop the US government, but we can certainly stop Microsoft e.a. from doing business here.