Even if the only purpose is to propagate absurdly naive and ineffective ideas?
What, google and apple "fighting" the US Government they've gladly been cooperating with since forever???
Why doesn't Schneier call them out for what these corporations really are, government snitches? What makes Schneier think any of these companies want to do what's "moral"??
This article is one of the most naive pieces I've ever read. It parts on the principle that these companies want to do what's moral, but the government is keeping them from doing it. That is absurd.
Google, Apple and friends have been willingly cooperating with the government in exchange for perks, for immunity against FTC probes and so on. They're NOT gonna "fight" because they have nothing to fight against.
Moral hazard cuts both ways, including giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Opportunity for wrong-doing doesn't confer guilt, it just means we should take the possibility seriously.
Look at it this way: if every tech CEO is complicit without coercion (a strong possibility), the purpose of the article is to take away their shield, and convince the reader that those CEOs are morally culpable for not defending their customers. It's about calling the bluff by proxy.
What, google and apple "fighting" the US Government they've gladly been cooperating with since forever???
Why doesn't Schneier call them out for what these corporations really are, government snitches? What makes Schneier think any of these companies want to do what's "moral"??
This article is one of the most naive pieces I've ever read. It parts on the principle that these companies want to do what's moral, but the government is keeping them from doing it. That is absurd.
Google, Apple and friends have been willingly cooperating with the government in exchange for perks, for immunity against FTC probes and so on. They're NOT gonna "fight" because they have nothing to fight against.