A Venture Capital firm says techies need to get along with government:
From Airbnb to Uber, some of Silicon Valley’s most successful companies have been fighting regulators since their inception. Now, one of the tech industry’s most respected venture capital firms wants to help both sides of the battle make nice with each other.
Andreessen Horowitz announced today that it’s launching a new policy and regulatory affairs unit, and that it has appointed Ted Ullyot, Facebook’s former general counsel, to lead the shop. Ullyot, who worked at both the White House and the Department of Justice before coming to the Valley, will be tasked with helping the firm’s portfolio companies see eye to eye with the government regulators with whom they’re increasingly butting heads.
Well, what do techies say, agree with the VC or string them up by their toes and poke them with sticks? Inquiring minds want to know...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Geezer on Friday April 17 2015, @11:49AM
I'll go for the toe strings and stick-poking.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday April 17 2015, @06:27PM
Go along to get along...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday April 17 2015, @11:53AM
Techies deal with the natural world. The natural world only have place for truth or your gadgets stop working because they are immersed in nature and Techies ought to know that groupthink is flawed, thus you need privacy. So there's a fundamental mismatch with the organizations that is into the lying and screwing sector. So there might be formal cooperation but there's no ground for anything solid and if there were, something else is going to be lost which have long term effects.
So VC wants his investments objects to play nice with government to have less hiccups in his path to profit. And Techies want secure funding. Government wants to get their way etc. So sure a kind of symbiosis can be established. But it will always be flawed and inheritable instable.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:17PM
So VC wants his investments objects to play nice with government to have less hiccups in his path to profit
I think you hit the nail on the head. There is no better way to a path of profits than a gov mandated monopoly. It makes barriers to entry high for your competitors. You get locked in regions to price fix.
From a money investment idea it is a sound idea. From a crunchy 'lets help the world' idea, not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:33AM
Yea, that's why sexist techies get banned from opensource.
Should sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?
Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.
A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).
The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).
With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:
* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?
and
* What are the consequences of not doing this
Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 [ibiblio.org]
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Debian_and_LinuxChix_harassment_by_MikeeUSA [wikia.com]
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51 [phoronix.com]
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?115776-Xonotic-Forked-ChaosEsqueAnthology-Sees-New-Release/page2 [phoronix.com]
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JeCIgSFrBlgJ:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page%3Dnews_item%26px%3DChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51%2Bchaosesque&gbv=1&tbs=qdr:w&hl=en&&ct=clnk [googleusercontent.com]
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday April 17 2015, @12:10PM
> Well, what do techies say, agree with the VC or string them up by their toes and poke them with sticks? Inquiring minds want to know...
I question your mind if you had to inquire.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:25PM
Why? The answer could still be "no", in case techies think stringing them up by their toes and poking them with sticks is not the only alternative to agreeing with them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:00AM
I agree, and in a related note, I was reading about Persian methods of execution/torture.
In essence, they are asking for techies to betray their fellow citizens in the interests of greater profits for a group typically entitled to 90% of it anyways. So the level of greed is terrifically and horrifically transparent. Tragically, their shortsightedness as well.
The VC people incorrectly have concluded, that belonging to the 1% will save them. It's not an unreasonable conclusion, as government is run by the people that can be bought for the correct price. However, that only guarantees them a slippery slope where an ever increasingly tyrannical government demands more and more. No more privacy at all for any American, but what's next? Just what does cooperation mean? Where does VC draw the lines?
To indirectly threaten techies with clouded motives in the first place, whether they like it or not, is to throw their hats in the ring. They're doing it for government. Just hope they remember the lessons of history on those that choose sides, and betray the public interest for short term profits.
There is no seeing eye to eye. What the government wants, it cannot ever have. Techies deal with reality . I can actually remember right now my first words when somebody described the Internet to me for the first time, and after I received my answer that just anyone could send packets to my machine. "Really? Those precious flower children are going to get their asses handed to them. You can't just let anyone communicate on your network. That's fucking nuts, over my dead body will you hook that up." What's my reality today? I quickly adopted the Internet once it became apparent that half the traffic was boobies. It's also one in which we just don't have any certainty anymore over our security. My original concerns were valid and prophetic. I've got firewalls, application layer firewalls, heuristics, RBLs, signatures, sand boxing, TPM, etc., and all of it because anyone can send me packets.
Techies are faced with a daunting enough task to provide security in very rough times (security wise and economically). As hard as everyone has worked, there has been somebody working equally as hard against them, or at least, certainly not cooperating. Now techies now just how insane this bad actor has been for all of us, and it's ramifications. It's not hyperbole to say techies woke up one day to find out a real life Super Villain was working in secret the entire time. I don't know how else to describe just how far reaching the fallout is over these revelations. I don't think Purism [puri.sm] could get started without it, and thankfully they're not venture capital. Their goals directly conflict with the governments at a fundamental level.
The government became the enemy by their actions, and nothing else. It only used to be rumor, baseless accusations, and the ranting of disenfranchised people. The truth moved rather fast over to a stark reality of the US losing billions in our technology sector from foreign fallout alone. Who's to say how it will end up too, but techies will never forget that the government cannot be trusted, and the businessmen will never forgive the government for creating the situation in which they can't act corrupt in the darkness anymore. Look how pissed Sony Pictures Entertainment IS? ;)
Anyone with a brain at all has already concluded the only road is one in which privacy is taken by force, and that will be technological in nature. All of the arguments have fallen flat, been sorted, and seen for their truth. Now the government is working to shut off the money to those that refuse to cooperate after 'butting heads'. That 'butting heads' being the government saying business as usual, or key escrow, and the techies are rolling their eyes, saying it's not technically possible anymore, and modern security refuses to acknowledge their proposals as approaching a state of security.
Funny thing, is that the techies deserve every part of it. That was a deal with the devils they signed. You deal with Darth Vader, you get progressively altered deals that keep getting worse all the time. Just when you thought you were going to get special treatment, the storm troopers are setting up camp and eyeing your daughters. It's kinda their thing.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:27PM
I agree, and in a related note, I was reading about Persian methods of execution/torture.
Are you talking about the one with the milk and honey and ants?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday April 19 2015, @03:31AM
Yes. Yes, I was.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 17 2015, @12:30PM
Yeah, it's a conversation-starter. I know where I stand, but the reader can probably infer that.
My sense is that the VC wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants his investments to be disruptive enough to earn him quick multiples on his dollar, but not have that disruption make any waves and trigger any lawsuits or government backlash. Of course that is impossible because when you are disruptive enough to earn a lot of money you have to do it by breaking the rules, because the rules to the game as it is are rigged; also, government, as the arbiter of that game, is a captured entity that has been captured by the very players your startup is trying to disrupt.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 17 2015, @12:52PM
The VC only wants the disruption within a certain range.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 17 2015, @02:05PM
Where did this idea come from?
There are 2 paths to real business success:
1. Create a useful service faster than anybody else so you become the de facto standard way of solving that problem before any other players are really in the market. See: Amazon, eBay. These players aren't playing the same game as everybody else, so rigging the game doesn't work.
2. Create a useful service that's better than anybody else's version, so you convince those who were using your competitors' version to switch to yours. See: Google. These players are playing the same game as everybody else, but they're playing it better and as a result are having success.
Both the cheating and the adverse consequences tend to happen after a business has become successful. The usual reason for that is investors expecting the company to continue to grow after it's already filled whatever niche it's trying to fill, and don't accept the idea of "Ok, we're the dominant player in X, so let's continue being the absolute best at X and rake in a good steady profit." What that means is that they expect businesses that have already beaten the odds (95% of tech startups fail) to do so a second time, and a third time, even though some of that is skill and some of that is sheer luck. Unable to meet those demands, the business instead starts to cut corners to fake growth.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 17 2015, @02:29PM
The examples of Amazon and eBay are good instances of not playing by the rules. They stepped outside the legal regime that governs their competitors. Brick-and-mortar stores have to pay rent & sales taxes, comply with local regulations when siting their stores, etc, etc. All those things constitute a high barrier to entry for new competitors. Did they technically break the law? No, but neither did the established players when they captured the regulators and set the table to suit themselves.
Take another good, current example. Tesla is selling its cars direct to consumers, without going through the dealership system as do their competitors. Many states, as chronicled through articles here on SN, have taken to banning Tesla sales because they are disintermediating the dealerships. Now, I love Tesla, and love that they're being disruptive, but they are doing it by "breaking the rules." And because they are sidestepping the government and regulatory infrastructure that has long been bought and co-opted by established players, they are encountering the blowback the VC in TFA was wringing his hands about.
So I return to my original thesis, that you cannot become the kind of successful company the VC from TFA would love to have invested his money in without incurring blowback from companies/players that have thoroughly gamed the current system.
Once in a very rare while you'll have an Eastman Kodak whose business model will evaporate overnight, but had there been a single player, a startup, whose digital photography had been responsible and whom they could have sued into oblivion, you can bet they surely would have.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday April 17 2015, @03:13PM
Aha, I see: You're talking about doing something different than their competitors. I was thinking you meant "Deliberately trying to avoid government-mandated responsibilities" (there are definitely businesses that do that, e.g. Uber). I take it "breaking the rules" is a catchphrase that means "Don't assume your competitors have figured out the best way of doing something".
Engaging in regulatory capture to try to prevent an improvement in an industry is a rearguard action that is usually doomed to failure. For example, if somebody in a state that doesn't allow Tesla sales really wants to buy one, they can have somebody they know in another state that does allow Tesla sales to buy one, then drive it to the state they live in (it's legal to own a Tesla, just not buy one direct from Tesla). Or, if there were a critical mass of potential customers in a state which requires a dealership in order to sell a car, they could set up a single dealership which was more like a depot than a retailer, offer home delivery on similar terms to their online sales, and then pay people to drive the cars from the dealership to the customers, which is still much more efficient than having dealers all over the state.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 17 2015, @08:57PM
Tesla avoids dealerships, but doesn't avoid warranty issues, safety regulations, or other state laws.
If you live in a dealership required state you can still buy a Tesla. But you have to take delivery outside your state. You can visit a showroom in some other state. (Actually I believe Tesla showrooms are legal anywhere, you just can't place an order there, but they can hand you the paper work, you can mail it in or do it over the internet.)
Some states go so far as to limit free speech by outlawing discussion of price.
You can meet the delivery guy 6 inches outside the state border.
Someday the state will realize the sales tax they forego protecting dealerships isn't worth losing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 18 2015, @02:22PM
Someday the state will realize the sales tax they forego protecting dealerships isn't worth losing.
How are they forgoing sales tax? Sales tax is based on your residence, not where you buy something. Try buying a car out-of-state and you'll find this out very quickly.
If you buy a car out-of-state and don't pay sales tax, you won't be able to register your car in your state of residence. You have to pay the tax at the time of registration.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday April 18 2015, @09:26PM
SOME states structure the tax so that it's owed for out of state transactions, others not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @06:02PM
You left off:
3. Inherit enough money so that no matter what you do with it, it multiplies exponentially.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:17PM
Thats the only way to get wealthy for sure, but being wealthy isn't the same as having a successful business.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 17 2015, @06:50PM
My sense is that the VC wants to have his cake and eat it, too.
A common flaw...
The general consensus on this site appears to be that "on a computer" shouldn't make something patentable. Yet, "on a computer" should make something exempt from existing law?
That seems like a pretty good example of wanting to continue to own the cake you have already eaten.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday April 17 2015, @02:09PM
Work with the government? No! Run the government!
This is only more propaganda, and particularly offensive and boneheaded propaganda at that. Trust them? Trust the powerful?!? The rich and powerful get to run the government, and we're supposed to play nice and cooperate while they treat the nation and the world as their personal cash cow, security blanket, and dumping ground all in one? Hell no!
Many people have forgotten or missed the point, or, to be fair, were subjected to brainwashing, in their high school American History classes. America is all about distrust of power. The top priority of the design of the US government is dealing with the problem of "power corrupts". The design has worked to some extent, but currently we have huge problems with regulatory capture and money politics. The will of the people is routinely ignored, except for purposes of manipulation with propaganda clothed as science, or just plain anti-science. I wish it was the case that making this point makes you into Captain Obvious.
Further, as to who should be running the country, it would be better to have more brainy tech, engineering, and scientific people running our bureaucracies. I don't say all positions should have such people-- Herbert Hoover is unfortunately an example of an engineer who got it wrong because he focused too much on engineering thinking, failing to appreciate the magnitude of the looming problem and deal with the corruption in the stock market and business world until it was too late, and this despite the corruptions of the terrible Harding presidency only 2 terms before his own. George W. Bush also got it wrong, on Iraq and on the housing market bubble, but for the different reason that he was simply not that smart, and he had picked blind loyalty as the most desirable characteristic for his appointees. But techies are underrepresented in high office. Instead, we often get corrupt, greedy fools. There's this unwarranted sense that the primary attribute that appointees need is not intelligence, not good sense, not honesty, but business, political, or administrative experience. The top positions are all filled by businesspeople or politicians. One of the few exceptions was Stephen Chu. One of the worst bureaucracies is the SEC. The bureaucrats do their jobs, uncover all this insider trading, deception, and fraud, and then the bought tools in the top positions bury it all.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday April 17 2015, @04:17PM
Work with the government? No! Run the government!
Destroy the government. Large power structures always go the way of corruption. If there is an answer to this problem, it is decentralisation.
Further, as to who should be running the country, it would be better to have more brainy tech, engineering, and scientific people running our bureaucracies.
Yeah, I'm sure that will go great. Then the large corrupt power structure will be able to spread oppression competently and efficiently. I think I'd prefer the thugs I know; at least they seem to bungle things up a decent amount of the time.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday April 17 2015, @07:30PM
Since we are discussing the obvious, I'd like to point out that a VC would never dare asking anybody to get along with X if he wasn't sure that X is under control. Venture Capitalism is about being able to evaluate risk.
In other words, if the government were the expression of a democratic system, VC's speech would not make any sense, because the government would be a pretty boring executor of a clear and easy to understand set of laws crafted by honest representatives.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:29AM
Just for the record, that was Phoenix's question.. I just left it there even though I was pretty sure what the response was going to be...
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Friday April 17 2015, @01:47PM
I'm older (in my 40s) and believe it or not have worked for the govt for most of my life. But that doesn't stop me from saying, 'that guy needs to shut the F up.' Techies are innovators and problem solvers. The government is not naturally a force for innovation, it's a force for the status quo. That is often a symbiosis that works. If you didn't have regulation the market wouldn't naturally regulate itself to the optimal situation. Without zoning laws for example your neighbor could build a gas station on his property and be a real nuisance or health hazard to you.
But in the light of Snowden's revelations, the last thing we need is techies 'cooperating' with government. Once govt has free reign, expect mandatory backdoors in hardware, no encryption, and so on - all things that benefit the establishment while frustrating the regular people. A little antagonism between innovators and the government is a good thing and I hope instead of 'getting along' techies can continue to contribute to solutions that keep the government on the leash it rightly deserves to be tied up with (hopefully around the neck or by the balls). Maybe the government should just piss off and learn to get along with techies before they go innovate on some other country's behalf ...
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @02:31PM
> I'm older (in my 40s)
On this site that makes you young.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Friday April 17 2015, @04:20PM
Without zoning laws for example your neighbor could build a gas station on his property and be a real nuisance or health hazard to you.
In Houston, the fourth largest city in the USA, we have no such zoning laws. We also don't seem to need them. Begone with your NIMBY FUD. Gas stations are built where it is profitable -- high thoroughfare traffic junctions -- which just happens to be where people don't want to live. We have a few commercial businesses set up inside residential houses, especially small businesses, but most are along high traffic roads where people don't want to live. I used to work in industrial noise abatement. We set up sound monitors to ensure industry meets with noise regulation laws (which require no zoning laws to be effective). Similarly, air and water quality regulations keep Pollution Heavy factories out of population centers without zoning laws being needed. Most people are surprised that there's a recording studio down the block from my home since it's soundproofed for quality and looks like a nice home instead of yet another square concrete eyesore. Most people don't know that the community sponsored radio station KPFT (90.1 FM) is broadcast from a two story house. The sat uplink to the main transmitters aren't visible from the front yard. This is a boon for many small businesses and non-proffits since when they are starting out they can use cheaper residential buildings before migrating to larger commercial office space.
So, here's the problem with nearly all current government employees, from the grunts to the officials: They're ignorant about the scientific method and/or refuse to use this most basic procedure. You SHOULD propose a law or policy as a hypothesis then TEST that hypothesis with an experiment to see if the hypothesis is correct before rolling out the law across the land. For example: I've just provided evidence for your null hypothesis in that zoning laws are not required to prevent nuisances or health hazards. Now you must provide significantly greater evidence that Zoning laws are essential or beneficial than the contrary evidence I've provided. If the government did this with every law and program then the techies would get along swimmingly with the government. They don't test their legislation and instead roll it out as a blanket across the entire area with no control group and hope it works. Then they fall victim to selection bias and the sunk cost fallacy to brow beat themselves into continuing the program. Meanwhile opponents to beneficial legislation successfully repeal them since there was no experimental evidence to prove their benefit. Meanwhile, fools just assume certain laws they like for purely speculative reasons are essential with no proof they aren't unnecessary simply because they existed while you were growing up.
I hate current regulations not because I'm against regulations, but because we have ZERO proof that they are beneficial. This goes for the Copyright and Patent systems too. There is no evidence patents or copyright laws are beneficial, only evidence to the contrary -- the fashion and automobile industries are allowed no copyright or design patents and yet are among the most lucrative, innovative, and profitable industries. It's time to grow the fuck up and start USING the basic tools of rationality in government. However, corruption abhors truth, so it is unevidenced ideology rather than the scientific method which governments utilize to control the people of earth, and it's fucking disgusting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:29PM
From Business Week
So private covenants (put in place by someone who buys a ton of land and subdivides it) replace zoning. The government enforces said restrictions. It does get rid of the horrible ability for society to change their mind about what goes where, since it was all determined by some developer 50 years ago. And it does replace democracy with one random guy's opinion.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:14AM
Optional private contracts are still leaps and bounds better than arbitrary decisions made by stuffed suits and forced on others at gunpoint.
I like the idea of "home owners' associations", even if I can't ever see myself buying property subject to one. (My workaround is to live out in the sticks on enough land so that even having a cement plant built adjacent to my property still won't bug me.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:23AM
and forced on others at gunpoint.
It is forced on others by gunpoint; who do you think enforces these stupid contracts?
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:37AM
Oh, really? What happens in the worst case when someone breaches a civil contract (specifically HOA, but could be any type)? Maybe you get sued in civil court. Maybe a judge allows a lein to be put on the property to cover the alleged losses due to the breach. If you still don't pay up, maybe you get civilian collection agencies sicced on your communications. Still not seeing any guns being brought to bear.
Of course, on the so-called criminal side of the house, even if you're in the right, government guns come out in your direction pretty darn quick.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday April 18 2015, @09:19PM
So what you're saying is that zoning has (mostly) been outsourced. Of course, there are cases like:
Similarly, air and water quality regulations keep Pollution Heavy factories out of population centers
So you're saying they must move into an area, (what should we call it, I know! It's a ZONE!) where the more polluting activities are permitted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:37AM
"expect mandatory backdoors in hardware"
Intel Active Management Technology /Vpro/VT.
Chip level VNC server + dump ram over 3g enough for you?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:48PM
It's not the 'techies' who need to play nice with the government. It's the profit businesses who need to play nice with the government. (Or the government who needs to play nice with the profit businesses.)
The Internet was a really nice place until the profit motive fucked it all up. Shame we can't tell them to get off our lawn.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TestablePredictions on Friday April 17 2015, @08:54PM
You mean dark web right? There have been various baby-steps attempts so far (dining-cryptographers, onion-routing, cryptocurrency, etc...). If techies ever become sufficiently motivated (pissed-off), they might finally go full-bore on developing air-tight implementations and integrating it all together to solve internet freedom once and for all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:49PM
Aaron Swartz turned his back to venture capitalists and the government killed him.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Leebert on Friday April 17 2015, @03:14PM
No, he committed suicide.
(Score: 1) by TestablePredictions on Friday April 17 2015, @09:17PM
All by himself with no provocation whatsoever? Or was driven to suicide by the unreasonable overreaction of contemptibles acting on the authority of state? Who then acted surprised and wept crocodile tears about what a shame it all was while changing nothing about systemic malincentives in the prosecution side of our justice system. Or the corrupt laws that enable it.
Yes, Aaron might be alive today had he followed the VC's advice. But let's switch from pragmatic to principled: govt is the one who needs to change its ways, not techies. The reason this principle is sound is because govt only has firepower going for it. Techies have the power of knowledge.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Leebert on Friday April 17 2015, @09:25PM
Immaterial. Suicide is, by definition, killing oneself. Not being killed by someone else.
You can perhaps argue that someone drove him to take that action. But Swartz was not killed by anyone other than himself. Making demonstrably incorrect statements is no way to further a cause.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday April 18 2015, @09:24PM
So your position is that Socrates committed suicide and the state was blameless?
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Sunday April 19 2015, @03:09AM
Correct.
Incorrect.
Now ask me about teenagers committing suicide because of "cyberbullying".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Daiv on Friday April 17 2015, @02:06PM
The point of most VC's is to get a huge return on their "investment", ideally asap. Of course they wouldn't want their investments spending money on things like lawsuits or just challenging laws. Hell, I'm sure the VCs would love for their investments to accept payola to allow government backdoor access.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 17 2015, @02:13PM
One of my great-great-many-many-great Grandpas discovered fire. He brought it home, glowing on a stick, and fed it after he got there. He wanted to keep it in a little stone bed that he made for the fire.
The Cave Council members took note of this smelly new pet that Great . . . Grandpa had. They sent a representative to tell Great . . . Grandpa that he had to get rid of his new pet.
Of course, Great . . . had already discovered the wonders of cooked meat, and offered to share some with that representative. The Council rep ran screaming back into the next cavern, where the Council was waiting to hear what Great . . . had to say. When the rep informed them that Great . . . had attempted to poison him with refuse cast off by the pet fire, the Council stormed Great . . . quarters, and executed him.
That, children is why our family is so reviled by one and all, far and near. And, that is also why we run like the deer from any sign that there might be a fire anywhere in the vicinity.
Now, eat up! Enjoy your raw venison, raw potatos, and raw bread!